Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Tobacco Products Labelling Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before moving on to the meat of my speech, I want to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House who have sponsored the Bill, which is an all-party measure and not partisan. My thanks go also to my outside advisers—Action on Smoking and Health and the Tobacco Control Alliance. I am sure that they accept the importance of widespread support for the Bill from the sharp end of public health. Without wishing to bore the House, I shall name some of the organisations that have indicated their support for the measure. I shall identify also those who are against it.
Support has been clearly demonstrated by the British Heart Foundation, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, National Asthma Campaign, Cancer Research Campaign, British Medical Association, Coronary Prevention Group, Medical Practitioners Union, Society of Health Education, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Cardiac Society, British Paediatric Association, International Union Against Cancer, Coronary Artery Disease Association, Royal College of Radiologists, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Royal College of Midwives, Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland, Royal College of Physicians, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, Quit—the National Society of Non Smokers, International Organisation of Consumer Unions, Parents Against Tobacco, Institution of Environmental Health Officers, National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, Royal College of Surgeons, Society of Occupational Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, Family Heart Association—(Horn. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Conservative Members who represent the tobacco industry must be embarrassed at the wealth of support for my Bill from people at the sharp end, who have to deal with the consequences of smoking. I am not surprised in the least at the barracking from Conservative Members.
Other organisations that have indicated their support are the Royal College of General Practitioners, Health Visitors Association, Ulster Cancer Foundation, World Health Organisation, Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians, Tenovus Cancer Research Appeal, Royal College of Nursing, Health and Safety Executive, British Lung Foundation, Marie Curie Cancer Care, Chest, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Addiction Research Unit and British Thoracic Society.

That is an impressive list of expert support for the Bill. The only vested interest that I can detect there is in public health and the well-being of the vast majority of our people.
The list of those who are against the Bill is not long. It consists of the tobacco industry and FOREST, the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, which is 95 per cent. funded by the tobacco industry. That is it. It is hardly surprising that there is so much support for the measure when one accepts, as I think the Government now accept—

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: I shall give way generously, but it might be more meaningful to give way when I have gone more deeply into my speech.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman wants to get back to his constituency.

Mr. Lewis: It is not altogether fair of my hon. Friend to say that.
It is hardly surprising that there is so much support for the measure when one considers that more than 111,000 people die prematurely each year from tobacco-related diseases, which include lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and strokes. That is why there is so much sharp-end support for the Bill.
Colleagues in all parts of the House know that I have many other interests such as leasehold reform and animal welfare, and a number of people were surprised when I chose this subject for a Bill after I came fourth in the ballot. The simple answer is that in my constituency alone one in five people die each year from diseases that are attributable to smoking. Salford, which takes in most of my constituency, is one of the country's black spots for tobacco-related diseases.
As important as that, one of the events in this place that convinced me to take on the tobacco industry again was the visit to the House last year by the late Roy Castle during a remission in his terrible illness. We had a super afternoon with Roy Castle, who was on top form, although he knew what his destiny was to be in just a few short months. Without being maudlin, I can say that his visit had a profound effect on me.
I have been a lifelong non-smoker for no reason other than that when I was a youngster I was interested in sport and was extremely fit. That is probably hard to believe now. I did not realise then that smoking could be such a horrendous disease and the only problem that I saw with it in those days was that the lads who smoked and played football with me ran out of breath quicker than I did and could not run as fast. However, it is far more serious than that and Roy Castle's visit and the conversations with him underscored that.
When we consider that more than 111,000 people die each year from tobacco-related diseases, it is no wonder that customers of the tobacco industry need to be replaced. Where does it get those replacements? Another simple statistic is that, on average, 500 youngsters are recruited each day to the tobacco habit. Of course, most of them will die in later life because of that habit. I emphasise that those who are recruited to smoking and touched by its effects and those who die from tobacco use are of all political persuasions and social classes.
As long ago as 1971 the Royal College of Physicians, in a strong report, recommended health warnings so as to have a greater impact on smokers, and the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen those warnings.

Mr. Colvin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that warnings to children on the dangers of smoking are now part of the national curriculum and that last year the Government spent £13.5 million on promoting that? Surely that is adequate warning for youngsters. If they insist on smoking, that is their own problem, but at the moment the Government spend an adequate amount on educating children about the dangers, and that is the time to do it.

Mr. Lewis: The point is that more youngsters are smoking. The issue is whether the £13.5 million is well spent. In the House, there are arguments day after day, when people ask whether money thrown at problems is money well spent. I am happy to see the national curriculum embrace the subject, but we have to look at the effectiveness of that education, and the statistics show that it is not effective. I concede that we are in the early days of such education in the national curriculum. None the less, I do not think that the money is being well spent. My measure would be a much better idea and it would not cost the taxpayer a penny.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect upon the contrast between how much the Government spend on trying to persuade young people not to smoke and the amount spent daily by the tobacco industry on trying to encourage young people to take up smoking?

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a cogent point. That argument has been well rehearsed in the House and outside. There is obviously a correlation between the amount spent by the industry and the amount spent on health education.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says that more young people are taking up smoking. Where did he find figures on that? The latest figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which he will know about, show that the numbers are going down. Part of the reason for that is voluntary agreements brought in by the Government and the measure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) to discourage children from smoking. Where did the hon. Gentleman get his figures to show that the number of children taking up smoking is going up? May we have some facts, please?

Mr. Lewis: The figures are more or less static, and as a percentage they are rising. The figures are readily available and if the hon. Gentleman took a trip to the Library, he could soon turn them up. He must concede that all the effort by Government and health organisations is a drop in the ocean compared with the amount of effort that is put in by the tobacco industry to replace the people whom it is killing.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: I should like to press on a little further, but as I said, I shall be generous in giving way.

Mr. Greenway: I speak as one who is currently seeing 204 jobs disappear from my constituency. Those are people who were honourably employed by Gallaher and who worked very hard. I am extremely supportive of the argument, although I am not a smoker. It is unpersuasive, is it not, to say that more young people are smoking and then to concede in response to an intervention that that is not the case. What effect would the Bill have on imported or smuggled cigarettes? Would it be possible to force the manufacturers of those cigarettes to use the imprimatur that the hon. Gentleman suggests? Those cigarettes are taking jobs from my constituents, to the passionate distress of Northolt.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should be patient. I assure him that I shall tackle that issue because it forms an important part of my speech. Public health and the future of the current generation have to be balanced against jobs, and I accept that that is a difficult balance. I have tobacco workers in my constituency, but I also have coal miners. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman make too much of a fuss when coal mines in my area were being closed. I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, which organises in the tobacco industry. I am not saying that the tobacco industry should be shut down tomorrow. My union and the members whom I have represented for more than 30 years understand that. What they do know is that I am trying to deal with what is undoubtedly a public health risk.
On the specifics of what the Bill will achieve, it will increase the size of warnings on packets and it will make them more emphatic so that they come more easily to the attention of people who are likely to start the smoking habit. During recent weeks, I have spoken to many people of my generation who smoke. Almost to a man, they said that had they known about the health risks when they started smoking in the 1950s or 1960s, they would never have started the habit. The sort of advice that they received from parents, family and teachers in those far-off days was, "You will never have any money if you smoke; it is an expensive habit." They never said, because they did not know, "If you start the habit, you will more than likely end up in the 1990s with heart trouble or emphysema, or you may even die of lung cancer."
That is the whole point of the Bill. I want to turn back the clock and build on the experience of other countries. The warnings must be more emphatic.

Mr. Greenway: As I said, I care passionately about the jobs in the tobacco industry in my constituency. It is irrelevant to talk about coal mines. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point about his Bill not applying to imported cigarettes from France and Germany. That is undermining jobs in my constituency. People are not stopping smoking, so all the Bill will do is undermine more jobs in British firms. That is a serious concern for my constituents.

Mr. Lewis: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I have already told him clearly that I shall come to that point later in my speech. I think that my argument is quite reasonable, because many hon. Members here today voted effectively to dismantle the coal industry. The hon. Gentleman voted for that and the industry was literally dismantled within days and weeks. That led to Britain having to import coal. It is exactly the same argument that the hon. Gentleman puts about cigarettes. However, I am being fairer than the hon.
Gentleman, because the consequences of my Bill will take time to come to fruition. It will not close down the tobacco industry tomorrow. If the Bill is passed, everybody will not stop smoking the day after tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman's tobacco workers will not be thrown out of work.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman promised that he would answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Perhaps it is unanswerable. However, he must deal with that point in the centre of his speech. He cannot dictate to the rest of Europe, which imposes health warnings covering 4 to 6 per cent. of a packet. Under the hon. Gentleman's Bill, Britain would have warnings covering 25 per cent. That would wipe out the entire tobacco industry in Britain and cigarettes would be imported instead. How will that deal with the smoking habit in this country—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I note with some displeasure the number of seated interventions and general mutterings. I am noting where they are coming from and hon. Members may find that they slide down my list somewhat.

Mr. Lewis: There is a way to satisfy the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I am sure that it can be well and truly sorted out in dialogue with the Minister.

Mr. Richard Alexander: The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in the coal industry. I voted against the Government on that issue, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it appears that he is suggesting that two wrongs make a right.

Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that that is a wholly relevant point.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I speak as a non-smoker and I understand some of the hon. Gentleman's points. He has just dealt with the question of whether people will be thrown out of work immediately. Those who run small tobacconists shops in my constituency are worried that, as has been explained by some of my hon. Friends, they will be thrown out of business more or less instantly because of the adverse impact of smuggling. They have asked me to put that point to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis: I have already said that I shall tackle that issue later in my speech. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the representations which I get from tobacconists in my constituency are usually about tax hikes and the effects of Budget proposals. It is easy for hon. Members to get carried away when analysing their postbags.

Mr. Robert Key: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that everybody on the Conservative Benches intends to vote against his Bill—some of us intend to vote for it. A point has been made about corner shops that sell tobacco. I wonder what proportion of their income is derived from that aspect of their business. One of the most interesting developments over the past two or three months has been the impact of the national lottery on those shops. I understand that the 5p commission per

ticket has yielded between £500 and £1,500 a week per shop, which is far more than the profit that they could ever make on tobacco.

Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I had not thought of that point.
As I was saying before all the interventions, as long ago as 1971, the Royal College of Physicians recommended stronger health warnings on cigarette packets. The Bill would move that idea further along. In every sense, it is a consumer empowerment device. It is about choice. It will have an enormous effect on public health. It will enhance public awareness of the hazards of tobacco use by improving the communication of necessary information. It is designed to ensure that cigarette packs have less appeal to young people.
I do not think that any of the apologists for the tobacco industry could deny that the tobacco industry puts enormous effort into the design of packs to make them attractive. I may be arguing with the Minister during most of the proceedings on the Bill, so I want to thank him for at least removing Camel art from the shelves as part of the voluntary agreement. We shall have many arguments about the voluntary agreement, but I welcome that one positive feature, and the Minister deserves credit for it.
The labelling of tobacco products in the European Union is regulated by two directives—one was adopted in 1989 and the other in 1992—which impose a minimum standard on member states. However, despite the amendments that were adopted in 1992—which, in particular, reinforce the labelling of tobacco products other than cigarettes—there are a number of weaknesses in the European legislation, which must be strengthened. The Bill will do that.
In the United Kingdom, health warnings are required to cover at least 6 per cent. of the front and back surfaces of the pack, which is 2 per cent. more than is required by the directive. Although that step has been well lauded, the effects in real terms are fairly negligible. I have no doubt that the Minister will claim credit for the fact that the UK standard is 50 per cent. in advance of the European Union standard.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is not 2 per cent. more, but 50 per cent. more.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that. Mathematics is perhaps not my best suit.

Mr. Skinner: One or two people cannot understand mathematics. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer lost £10 billion in an afternoon and never went near a betting shop.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Today, I have qualified for the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems that being innumerate is the best qualification, but I thank the Minister for his intervention.
The principal weakness of present legislation is due to the lack of visibility of warnings because of size, position, typeface, design and the use of colours. I know that you will not be pleased at me using props, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall refrain from doing so, but looking at various pack designs in the past few weeks has given me a clear idea of the enormous amount of effort and Saatchi


and Saatchi work that goes into disguising the warning against the background of the pack. I do not think that anyone will argue about that.
Pack design is clever. A background of long lines makes it difficult in certain lights to see the warning on the pack. That is the principal weakness of the current legislation.

Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting observation about designer packets. He might care to explain why a particular cigarette brand has found itself a nice little niche in the market, even though the packet is white with a skull and crossbones, and the brand is called Death.

Mr. Lewis: The brand is appropriately named. I am not sure that it has a niche in the market because of the colour of the pack. As I understand it, it is about clever importers getting round import legislation and using customers as agents. We are talking about cigarette packs which appear on the shelves in tobacconists shops, and which are passed around in places such as the tea room. We are not talking about companies that get round legislation by importing cigarettes. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. That is a fact about Death cigarettes.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Camel. I do not know whether he intends to mention it later; some of the supporters of his Bill may do so. I am pleased that he lauds the Government's decision, which was supported by the tobacco manufacturers. Does he agree that Camel sales in the UK amount to only 0.25 per cent.? It is obviously an offender and I think that the industry has admitted that. He is stretching the imagination a little far by saying that the warnings on manufacturers' packs are not obvious to people who want to look at them. If people choose to ignore them, that is up to them.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. I was being illustrative about pack design. I was not arguing about those companies' share of the market. I am talking about the simple premise of the designer packs.. I gave just one example where I thought that the Minister deserved a little pat on the back. The hon. Gentleman should allow me that indulgence, and not spoil me and make me mad. That is a little over the top.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if manufacturers abide by the letter but not by the spirit of the voluntary code, they add to the pressure to tighten the code or to introduce more legislation? Does he agree that if 5,000 people a week stop smoking, 2,000 because they are dead and 3,000 because they have given up before they die, and if fewer people take up smoking after the age of 21, much of the effort must be directed at people who, sadly, copy the example of older people—not necessarily because of advertising—and who look on smoking as an acceptable habit?

Mr. Lewis: As always, the hon. Gentleman is looking for a compromise. I do not know whether any compromise is on offer. However, if the House gives the Bill its Second Reading today and if it is considered in Committee, those ideas may be explored. My position now, however, is that we should follow the example of

other countries, such as Canada and Australia, and seek to ensure that packs are of the same design as in those countries. It is not doing the tobacco industry any harm in those countries. It seems a reasonable route to take.
Clause 1(1)(a)(i) improves the position in relation to the size of the health warning. It states that it should be
printed in a position where it is clearly visible and unlikely to be damaged when the packet is opened".
Subsection (1)(a)(ii) states that the health warning should be
printed in the centre of a rectangular area … which is surrounded by a border
to ensure that the message stands out and that it is not incorporated into the pack design.
That appears to have been successful in Canada and Australia. If colleagues wish, I could go through chapter on verse on the experience in those two countries, although I accept that the new pack design was introduced in Australia several months ago and that a bedding-in period is probably required.
Subsection (1)(b)(i) states that the warning on any packet containing cigarettes or rolling tobacco should cover at least 25 per cent. of the pack surface. Provisions have been made if the pack is not rectangular. The provision ensures that the health warning is printed at the top of the packet, thereby maximising the visibility of the message.
With the warning positioned at the top of the packs, smokers are constantly reminded of the health implications of smoking. Existing warnings, positioned at the bottom of the pack, are easily obscured when stacked for display and when circulated during normal social intercourse.
Professor Gardner has published a paper for the Society of Clinical Psychiatrists. He states:
Social and personal rituals with cigarette packets related to fundamental human daily activities may reinforce dependency messages. Health messages on the packs are not prominent enough to continually warn smokers during these activities.
He argues that there should be new, stronger health warnings
to help break the automatic pilot guiding the purchase and use of cigarettes.
We do not take that into account very much. The problem involves not just the purchase of cigarettes across the counter and the continual use by the individual, but people passing packs round and reinforcing the message while they are having a cup of tea or a glass of beer.

Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Gentleman has not referred to poster advertising, which contains pungent health warnings. He has to convince us today that sufficient awareness does not exist among the public at large. My information is that people out there—adults and children—are already well aware of the dangers of smoking.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has convinced himself. The latest voluntary agreement on poster advertising has accepted the need for larger warnings, and the need for white lettering on a black background or black lettering on a white background. That has been the case since 1 January. All I am saying—I think that I take the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) with me—is that the same conditions should apply to packs. [HoN.


MEMBERS: "Why?"] If those conditions are good enough for posters and are deemed necessary by Ministers and by the industry, why should they not apply to packs?

Mr. Michael Trend: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) was trying to raise this point. Has the hon. Gentleman met anyone who was unaware of the dangers of smoking?

Mr. Lewis: Yes—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. I can tell them what they will probably regard as a funny story. I was told a day or two ago that one young woman would buy only packs that did not have the warning that smoking can damage babies. She needs educating. She probably buys brands that have an entirely different warning on them because she does not like the warning about damaging babies.

Sir Peter Emery: I want to clear up a point, which the hon. Gentleman understands, that was put earlier and left standing; it goes rather against the hon. Gentleman's argument. Smoking among youngsters has increased. The figures that I shall quote are in Hansard of 27 January at column 393 and are included in a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister. I quote only from Hansard, as you understand, Madam Deputy Speaker. The information on the prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over shows that in 1988, the figure was 32 per cent. and that it is now down to 29 per cent. For women, the figure has gone down from 30 per cent. to 27 per cent. The information for the prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among pupils between 11 and 15 shows that in 1988, the figure for boys was 7 per cent.; it has now gone up to 8 per cent. For girls, the figure has gone up from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent. Let us have the facts and not a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was involved in the previous altercation about facts, I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that the facts I quoted were from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal with this point of order right now. It is not a point of order; it is a matter for intervention if so required.

Mr. Carlisle: It is a question of my good name—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is as sensitive as that, I wonder whether he should be here at all.

Mr. Lewis: As always, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is the distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I would have expected no less of him. I tell the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that I would rather accept the Minister's word for the purposes of my argument.
Clause 1(1) ensures that the health warning is placed on a white background and on the front and top of the packet, to maximise visibility. Clause 1(2) details the type and colour requirements for the health warning, ensuring legibility and prominence. That provision is similar to the

Provision for poster advertisements to which the hon. Member for Harrogate referred. To avoid desensitising the message, which is a common occurrence, the colours should be rotated so that for 50 per cent. of the time, the lettering is white on black and for the other 50 per cent. of the time, the lettering is black on white. Clause 1(2) also prevents the incorporation of the warning into the design of the pack by requiring the addition of a distinguishing line between the warning and the rest of the pack. For a white background with black lettering, there would be a black border; the reverse would be the case for white lettering.
Clause 1(3) details the type and colour requirements for the product information on the side of the pack, which is an important feature. The analysis of the tobacco product includes the tar yield and other details of its composition. Clause 1(4) addresses the issue of flexibility when dealing with the warning on different pack sizes. It is not always possible to have a rectangular warning; that would be a matter for discussion in Committee.
Clause 1(5) allows the Secretary of State discretionary powers to address the import of tobacco products from other European Union states for consumption in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) will pay particular attention to this part of my argument. Article 8 of the relevant Council directive on labelling allows member states to introduce requirements concerning the import, sale and consumption of tobacco products that they consider necessary to protect public health. Under article 8, the Secretary of State has the power, in the interests of public health, to ensure that imports into the United Kingdom are on a par with the indigenous product.

Mr. Harry Greenway: This is clearly a most important point. Can the hon. Gentleman give me three or four examples of countries where the directive is currently applied?

Mr. Lewis: I do not think that that point is relevant. We have the directive. Article 8 gives the Secretary of State the power. I am not interested in any other Secretary of State in any other country in the Union. I am interested in what happens here. Under the directive, our Secretary of State has the power to take up the position that I have described. There is no argument. Comparisons are odious at this stage of the game.

Mr. Greenway: Comparisons are not odious; they are absolutely essential if the hon. Gentleman is to convince the House of this important part of his argument. What would be the attitude of the French Government, the German Government and other Governments in countries that export cigarettes to this country if we started to ban their exports in this or any other area? There would be retaliation; it would be a denial of free trade. Is not the whole thrust of the European Union for free trade? If the hon. Gentleman cannot give me three or four examples, or even one, how does he expect to convince me?

Mr. Lewis: I am being drawn into a European Union argument. I am one of the original Euro-sceptics. My proposition is simple.

Mr. Greenway: Give an example.

Mr. Lewis: I do not think that examples are necessary. Article 8 of the directive is relevant.

Mr. Greenway: Give an example.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have warned hon. Members before that seated interventions are not helpful. The hon. Gentleman should either seek to intervene in the normal way or he should stay quiet.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will not take no for an answer. Article 8 of the Council directive gives the Secretary of State the power, in the interests of public health, to ensure that other countries in the European Union adhere to that directive. If there is a difficulty with that, let us thrash out the detail in Committee. I am sure that the Minister would welcome that approach. I hesitate to say that the hon. Member for Ealing, North is on the wrong horse, but my proposition is simple.

Mr. Greenway: I am bound to persist with my argument. I am not a smoker, but I care passionately about the 204 people in Northolt who may lose their jobs—

Mr. Skinner: They are losing those jobs now.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) must convince the House, but he cannot even give one example of—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My strictures about seated interventions apply to both sides of the House, especially to those sitting on the Front Bench below the Gangway.

Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Gentleman cannot give me a single example on an issue which is absolutely essential to my argument and which matters hugely to my community, how can he expect to convince the House or the country?

Mr. Lewis: I did not anticipate having to give examples. A directive exists. We are all loyal members of the EU, I should have thought—some are—and certainly Governments are loyal members of the EU. The Secretary of State has powers under article 8 of the directive, so what is the fuss? I am as concerned as—

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman would just hang on, I shall deal with one intervention at a time.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North should accept that I am as concerned as he is about jobs, probably even more so, because I have never voted in any way to deny jobs anywhere. I do not think that one can say that about him, but leaving that on one side, there is no doubt that article 8 of the directive provides the Secretary of State with sufficient power.

Mr. Leigh: The argument about the directive is crucial to the debate and the hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way so that we can investigate whether he is right. In fact he is wrong, because the EC made clear its position subsequent to Canada's attempt to enact the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The Commission said:
The EC is of the opinion that this proposed requirement, an increase of 25 per cent., is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil an aim of protection of public health, especially when compared with EC legislation, which has achieved this objective with messages varying from 4 to 6 per cent.
The Commission has already made it clear that any increase in the size of the warning on the packet to 25 per cent. would be contrary to the workings of the internal market.
The hon. Gentleman quoted just part of article 8. I accept, as he said, that it makes it clear that
The provisions of this Directive do not affect the right of the Member States to lay down, in compliance with the Treaty, requirements concerning the import, sale and consumption of tobacco products which they deem necessary in order to protect public health, provided"—
the following is important—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should, by their nature, be short. That was too long. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) can resume his seat.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has killed his argument, because I do not think he is aware that Canada is not a member of the EU.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: No. Let me quote from article 8. I remind the hon. Gentleman once again that Canada is not a member of the EU, whether it wants to be or not.

Mr. James Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: No. I have given way enough. Let me clarify what article 8 of the 1989 directive says. I shall quote it in full:
1. Member States may not, for reasons of labelling, prohibit or restrict the sale of products which comply with this Directive.
2. The provisions of this Directive do not affect the right of the Member States to lay down, in compliance with the Treaty, requirements concerning the import, sale and consumption of tobacco products which they deem necessary in order to protect public health, provided such requirements do not imply any change to labelling as laid down in this Directive.

Hon. Members: Exactly.

Mr. Lewis: Hang on. The directive still allows the Secretary of State a measure of discretion to promote public health on cigarette packs. That could be debated further in Committee should the House give the Bill a Second Reading. Hon. Members have not convinced me and I have not convinced them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lewis: No, I shall not give way. Conservative Members have had a good crack.
The labelling of tobacco products is recognised as an important part of smoking prevention policy. It is constantly evolving as a result of continuing progress by medical research into the consequences of tobacco on health. I cannot understand how Conservative Members cannot recognise the need for better health education in respect of tobacco consumption.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has probably spent all morning in a television studio, because he has just walked into the Chamber. As he is the best known tobacconist in the House, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to give way to him.

Mr. Evans: I can speak from experience.

Mr. Lewis: The first health warnings appeared—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I gave a warning earlier about seated interventions. If, as I gather, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was watching the debate on television, he will have heard it.

Mr. Lewis: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was on the other end of the camera.
The first health warnings appeared when the dangers of tobacco consumption had just been discovered. No one can argue about that. Those warnings communicated general messages about the possible health risks of smoking. The increased knowledge about the full extent of the danger of tobacco use must be reflected in the way in which that message is conveyed.
The research conducted today is enormous when compared with that conducted 30 years ago. Just last year, Sir Richard Doll and Professor Richard Peto, of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, illustrated the enormity of the risk associated with smoking. They found that one in two of all regular smokers will die prematurely as a result of their habit. Those killed by tobacco in middle age, between the ages of 35 and 69, lose an average of between 20 and 25 years of non-smoker life expectancy. The Tobacco Manufacturers Association claims that smokers are fully aware of the risks involved, but that is not true. That is no argument for not introducing my Bill.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, because I have given way to hardly any of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend said that tobacco smokers understand the risks involved, but is he aware that many tobacco smokers do not appreciate the effect of smoking on their circulation system? A number of people who have had to have limbs amputated did not realise that that was a possible consequence of smoking.

Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because in the past 10 days I have spoken to two smokers who surprised me when they said that amputation was one of their biggest fears. They told me that they understood that their habit caused damage to their lungs and perhaps to their hearts, but they did not appreciate the risk to their limbs. I had not given it much thought either.

Mr. Robert Banks: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I have given way enough to Conservative Members. I shall give way no more, as I am about to conclude.
It is true that public information campaigns in developed countries have made most people aware that tobacco is bad for their health and that it may cause lung cancer and other serious diseases. Because of the high risk attached to smoking and the degree of choice involved when individuals decide to smoke, thereby introducing themselves to that risk, the perception gap is extremely important. The Bill would address that by ensuring that the style of the warning reflected its importance.
Research carried out by the Health Education Authority illustrated that point by concluding that there is a tendency among many smokers to interpret the small size of the warning as evidence of Government duplicity. Smokers also equate the size of the warning to the magnitude of

risk. With regard to our current health warnings, it is not surprising that research shows that perception of the health risk is very commonly underestimated.
A National Opinion Polls survey in 1994 stated that 60 per cent. of smokers still do not recognise that smoking causes the highest number of premature deaths in the United Kingdom each year. The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) underscores the message that I have been trying to convey today.
I hope that the Bill will go into Committee and that we can consider the issues that Conservative Members may feel have not been dealt with adequately today. I believe that the Bill will add immeasurably to the education of the public on this vital public health matter.

Sir Peter Emery: I support the Bill for a specific reason: I am massively interested in the health of the nation and the need to take every possible step to protect the health of the nation. Therefore, my analysis of the Bill relates to two areas. First, what are the effects of smoking? Are they bad and should we encourage the reduction of those effects? Secondly, if all hon. Members believe that smoking is bad, could the Bill assist to reduce the effects of smoking? That seems to be a fairly sensible and logical approach to the matter.
As I am about to consider the need to decrease smoking, I must declare that I am chairman of the council of the National Asthma Campaign. Therefore, I can speak with some authority about asthma. I want to remind hon. Members about the effects of smoking, not with regard to its causing asthma, but with regret to its effect on asthmatics.
A survey carried out in 1991 showed that cigarette smoking is a common trigger of asthma attacks, causing difficulties for 57 per cent. of people with asthma. In 1986, the World Health Organisation acknowledged that older people, and those with asthma or heart problems, can be adversely affected by people smoking close to them. I am concerned about the passive effects of smoking as well as the actual effects.
Studies have shown that children with asthma experience more severe asthma symptoms when exposed to smoke from their parents' cigarettes. That evidence can be found in the Murray and Morrison survey published in 1989.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I would like to make a little more progress with my speech.

Mr. Colvin: My point is rather relevant.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend will have to wait a moment and be patient.
In 1990, American researchers discovered that smoking in the home is associated with higher rates of asthma. an increased need for asthma medications and an earlier onset of the disease itself. A study of 10,000 British children, who were followed from birth to the age of 10, revealed a 14 per cent. increase in childhood wheezy bronchitis when mothers smoked more than four cigarettes a day and a 49 per cent. increase when mothers


smoked more than 14 cigarettes a day. That evidence can be found in the "American Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health".
It is proven that mothers who smoke when pregnant or soon after can increase the likelihood of their child developing asthma. Research shows that children whose mothers smoke 15 or more cigarettes a day have a 33 per cent. higher chance of developing asthma.
I could recount a list of the medical evidence about the effects of smoking on health which could become a filibuster. I am sure that the House is unanimous about the effects of smoking. Can any hon. Member who opposes the Bill say that he believes that smoking helps health? Can anyone do that?

Mr. Colvin: Well, my right hon. Friend has just asked a straight question.

Sir Peter Emery: I will finish my question before I give way to my hon. Friend. Can any hon. Member say that smoking has no effect on health? Those are the questions that must be answered. If my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) wishes to stick his neck out, I will be delighted to cut it off.

Mr. Colvin: I tried to intervene earlier when my right hon. Friend was talking about passive smoking and smoking in public places. I wanted to draw his attention to the fact that he may have picked up the wrong speech because the Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill is the next item on the Order Paper today. We are considering tobacco labelling at the moment.
However, my right hon. Friend asked the direct question as to whether tobacco smoke has a beneficial effect on health. I am not a smoker, I hate tobacco smoke and I am especially against passive smoking. However, I always make a point of travelling on the top deck of a London bus simply because I believe that tobacco smoke is so toxic that it kills the germs that I would otherwise breathe in if I sat downstairs. I am sure that there is no scientific evidence that that is so. The belief is simply based on anecdotal evidence from my own experience. I have managed to get through the winter without catching a cold because I travel on the top deck and breathe in that horrible smoke which kills off all other germs.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that that is the end of the anecdotes. That was a long intervention.

Sir Peter Emery: I had always thought that my hon. Friend was rather more serious than anecdotal. I can say only that no one in the medical world would give a tinker's cuss for my hon. Friend's argument.
I have read the Order Paper and I am aware of the Bill which relates to smoking in public places. However, I am arguing about smoking in public places and anywhere else. A study has shown how exposure to cigarette smoke for an hour causes a 20 per cent. deterioration in the lung function of adults with asthma. That evidence is revealed in "The Passive Effects on Bronchial Asthma" by the Domes, Bolin and Slaggen inquiry which was published and accepted by the Department of Health.
It is clear that passive smoking causes a 20 per cent. deterioration in lung function; this is for asthmatics and for people with bronchitis, emphysema and all the other

diseases of the lungs. There is also evidence that exposure to other people's smoke can lead to an increased need for emergency hospital treatment for people with asthma.
I want now to consider public opinion and smoking. In February and March 1992, the European Community conducted a questionnaire of the citizens of the 12 member states. In the Community as a whole, the majority of those surveyed–85 per cent.—said that they favoured clearly defined areas reserved for smokers and areas where non-smokers are protected.

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that we have the unique opportunity this morning to discuss two Bills on smoking. It is quite clear that although my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is undoubtedly passionate about the effects of smoking on asthma, he is talking to the Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill rather than to the Tobacco Products Labelling Bill. Would you please rule to the effect that we should wait and discuss passive smoking when we reach the second Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) would like to take my place. Had I thought that that was the case, I would have so ruled.

Sir Peter Emery: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find it very strange that people cannot understand that passive smoking, and the decreasing of passive smoking, is a major factor which the Tobacco Products Labelling Bill can do something to assist. I find it particularly surprising that people are unable to understand that.
Nobody has any medical basis for suggesting that smoking can he beneficial or that it is not harmful. If that is established, let us consider whether the Bill can do anything to assist. I do not think that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—certainly not myself—would suggest that there will be a revolutionary effect from the Bill, but every small step to decrease the use of cigarettes is beneficial to the health of the nation. As I said at Health questions recently, every day five people die from asthma—that is more than 2,000 a year. The problem is made worse by the effects of smoking. If we want to do something to assist the health of the nation, even if it affects such a major industry as the tobacco industry, and even if it affects some people who are in employment, the overall effect on the nation should be our major aim.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. Friend knows of my constituency interest in this matter. The good people of Northolt who are losing their jobs have no interest in his argument, because British cigarettes, which can be controlled by the House and which are already being overtaxed anyway, are being replaced by imports. My right hon. Friend has not addressed that point at all.

Sir Peter Emery: I have not actually dealt with imports. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) talks about his constituents. I should like


him to go to the Asthma Society in his area. More than 276 of his constituents would urge him to support the Bill because they are affected by it.

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend is missing the point. It is not that existing smokers are ceasing to smoke. They are being forced to smoke not British cigarettes but imported cigarettes.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend's argument is nonsensical, and I just do not accept it. The number of imported cigarettes sold in his constituency is the absolute minimum compared with the sale of ordinary cigarettes manufactured by his own constituents. My hon. Friend and I know that, so let us not have false arguments.
Can increasing the size of warnings on cigarette packets help to decrease smoking? A major investigation was carried out by Professor Alex P.W. Gardner for the 13ritish Psychological Society. I shall refer to only three of his conclusions; there are many more. He said:
Existing smokers claim that current health warnings have little impact and many appear to merge and to be incorporated in the pack designs.
Hon. Members have only to see certain cigarette packets to realise that that is the case. Professor Gardner went on to state that
Research suggests that smokers feel the packet is image related, exciting … and desirable.
Cigarette packets do have strong affective associations to the smoker".
That is particularly so among women. He went on to state:
The inference from this is that major changes are needed … to the package design to offset these effects and make the health message more salient.
There is a most intriguing example of that fact. The American cigarettes, Lucky Strike, had a green package in the 1930s. Research found that women did not buy Lucky Strike cigarettes because they liked to have a white packet in their handbags. The manufacturer could not see a way of changing the modus of its approach until America was brought into the war by the Japanese. There was a campaign which stated, "Lucky Strike green has gone to war," and a white package was produced. That was purely to attract female smokers. The tobacco industry itself knows that package design has a considerable effect on the sale of cigarettes.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend is quoting Professor Gardner, whom the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) also quoted, saying that design has an effect. Will my right hon. Friend also accept a quote from Australia? The hon. Member for Worsley also mentioned Australia in part of his defence. He referred to Dr. Power of Macquarie university, who said:
There is no evidence anywhere in the studies reported that any changes to cigarette packets will have any effect on the behaviour of the target groups.
That was part of the research that was carried out for the Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer. There are always other sides to the argument. Surely my right hon. Friend is not going to accept just one person's evidence on that rather spurious case.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) takes that view. Therefore, perhaps he will accept the evidence of the tobacco manufacturers. In the example that I gave, the

manufacturers themselves went out of their way to alter their campaign in order to change the package. That is what they did. We do not have to go to the professors—even to those whom I am quoting—because the industry itself accepts that. Perhaps my hon. Friend, who is interested in the industry, will accept the evidence of the industry.
I shall now continue my point about the need to increase the size of warnings. We must accept that it is self-evident that a notice that takes up 25 per cent. of relevant area is more likely to be read and taken into account than one which covers only 6 per cent. of he area. I should like to hear the arguments of those who think otherwise, but that fact should be obvious. Therefore, if we are interested in hammering home a health warning about the dangers of cigarette smoking, does not it logically apply that it would be better to have something to which more people would pay attention and read than to have something to which they would be less likely to pay attention and to read?

Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I shall finish my argument and then I shall give way.
The only people who do not think in that way are people in the tobacco industry. I shall refer to the reasons why the Government are taking their line.

Mr. Banks: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that before legislation is passed by the House it is important to have evidence to support the reasons for it. Can he tell us how many members of the public are not aware already that smoking damages their health?

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), whom I know and like, puts a non sequitur. The Government accept that it is necessary to continue a campaign. It is not I but the Government who should answer my hon. Friend. The Government are spending £13.5 million of my hon. Friend's money, my money and the taxpayer's money to make that more evident. The Government are actually pursuing the very point that I am making. I wish to assist the Government and to take the matter further. I can see no reasons for not doing so other than those of the tobacco industry.
It is strange that those opposing the Bill say that it cannot be proved that there is any need to increase the warning on cigarette packaging. They suggest that the packet contains enough warning already and that the size does not matter. If it does not matter, why is the tobacco industry so against an increase?

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Cost.

Sir Peter Emery: The point made in that sedentary intervention is more relevant than many of the points made during the debate by those standing up. An increase in the warning would mean the cost of a new design. It would be possible in the Bill to provide for a long period before the provision came into operation—long enough for designs to be changed without an additional cost factor. If cost is a argument, the Bill can be modified to cope with it. I am certain that the Bill's promoter would be happy to agree to that.
If the argument that the size of the warning has no effect is correct, why is the tobacco industry opposed to that increase? Why do the Government believe that, if the


Legislation is enacted, it could put the voluntary agreement at risk—an argument that we have heard before and will hear from the Minister this morning? If that argument is true, that proves the effect of the increase. If increasing the warning would put the voluntary agreement at risk, it must damage the sale of cigarettes—something that the tobacco industry would hate. That is an even stronger argument for us to press forward with the provisions.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I have not given way to an Opposition Member yet, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barron: The right hon. Gentleman has advanced a good argument. The argument about the voluntary agreement contains a threat. The tobacco industry can threaten any voluntary agreement which is not cast in statute and is fragile. If the tobacco industry does not want to uphold such an agreement, it can be coercive and threaten not to co-operate with the Government in advancing the cause of public health.

Sir Peter Emery: We all know of the campaign that the hon. Gentleman has been waging since he introduced his own Bill on tobacco advertising last year.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) will pass on to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who is to reply to the debate, that we need a clear statement from the Government today on their view of the Bill. When it is known that the Government are to oppose a private Member's Bill, it does not make sense for the Government not to make their position clear. When the position is not made clear, the Bill proceeds into Committee, where hours are spent debating amendments, and returns to the Floor of the House for Third Reading and Report in order that one or two people—who the Government know oppose the measure—may state their opposition to it. That means that the Government do not have to make their position clear. The House should require any Government to inform it of the Government's view on private Members' Bills on Second Reading. That would save an immense amount of time for all hon. Members in the House and in Committee. I urge the Government to make their position clear on the Bill before us.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I shall give way two more times, but that is all.

Mr. Colvin: I support my right hon. Friend in what he has just asked the Government to say. Perhaps, at the same time, my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether the Chancellor believes that he should continue to impose the 3 per cent. increase in real terms on the price of cigarettes through additional taxation, year on year. The Government's ammunition to deal with the problems of smoking seems to be price, as well as constructive education.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend, and am delighted to agree with him. I should like the Chancellor

to put a much higher tax on cigarettes. In doing so, the Government would be pursuing their policy—to help the nation's health. The Government's stated policy is to decrease smoking. The worry is that smoking is not decreasing among the young, which is why I read out the statistics from the Minister—

Mr. John Carlisle: It is.

Sir Peter Emery: Obviously, my hon. Friend was not present when I read out the figures.

Mr. Harry Greenway: It was not me—I have not said anything.

Sir Peter Emery: I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
I do not intend to repeat the statistics. My hon. Friend can look at the figures in Hansard—either those given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or as repeated by me. There is no decrease in smoking among young people.

Mr. Carlisle: That is not true.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend says that that is not true. For goodness sake—why should I repeat the darn things? If we look at the figures—[Interruption.] I shall not bother with them. I should not waste the time. of the House. The facts are apparent from the Government's statement on the Floor of the House, which can be read in Hansard.
I am worried about young women, who cause me the greatest concern. There has been a positive increase in smoking among young women—much more than among young boys. Those women are likely to be most affected by the style of pack. They, as youngsters, may not know of the dangers. People have asked who does not know about the dangers of smoking. Youngsters may not know about those dangers. The message should be hammered home on the labelling of the pack—that must make sense.
Why should we not pass the legislation? What possible reason can there be for not doing so? We all agree that we are interested in the nation's health. If the Bill would make one positive little step forward, surely it should be encouraged. The only reason for arguing against the Bill is to protect the tobacco producers' interests. The Bill is not a major piece of legislation.

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: No, I will not. My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye and make his own speech.
There cannot be a reason for opposing the legislation unless it is to defend tobacco producers' rights. If that is so, I am sorry, but I believe that the majority of the people in this country would back such legislation. The 198 branches of the National Asthma Campaign cover most constituencies and involve many more people than those who work in the tobacco industry—they would be massively in favour of the Bill. The Government should accept the Bill because there is no reason not to do so.

Mr. Kevin Barron: In the last minute of his speech, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) mentioned the politics of the tobacco industry in


this country. I can draw a direct parallel between what he said and the private Member's Bill that I promoted last year with his support and that of many other Conservative Members on the subject of tobacco advertising.
We had seen leaked documents from the Secretary of State for Health, which had been discussed in Cabinet in 1993 and which stated that advertising would reduce tobacco consumption, not merely result in smokers switching brands. The same arguments have been advanced today in sedentary interventions as were made against my Bill. Arguments opposing legislation to increase public knowledge of the dangers of smoking are made in the interests of tobacco companies, not in the interests of the public's health.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) for introducing the Bill and enabling us to debate once again the dangers of smoking and associated issues. These are important issues, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. Like him, I had to put up with nonsensical interventions last year when I introduced a similar Bill. I believe that they are made by hon. Members who do not declare their interests in these matters. My hon. Friend did well and I congratulate him on the way in which he moved the Bill's Second Reading.
I congratulate my hon. Friend also on reading out a list of organisations and individuals within them who live daily with the victims of tobacco use. Their support is vital when introducing legislation to increase public education so that people are increasingly aware of the damage that tobacco does to the nation's health. I noticed that some hon. Members seemed to be uneasy when the list was read out. Anyone who visits his local hospital and meets people who are dying because of the effects of smoking will understand that we must do everything that we can to bring to the attention of the public the great dangers that result from smoking.
When the House considers any legislation that bears on smoking we always hear about the loss of jobs that will ensue. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has already raised the issue. In 1991, the Department of Health, as it now is, was taken to court by the tobacco industry. It was argued at the time that if the proposed restrictions were introduced the tobacco industry would produce its products abroad. The Department decided in 1991 to go beyond the measures set out in the EEC directive by 50 per cent., and it was taken to court. The three tobacco manufacturers that took it to the European Court lost their case in 1993. We know that the tobacco industry has not gone abroad to produce cigarettes.
The weak arguments that are advanced on behalf of the tobacco industry do not reflect what has happened. I am aware of the argument about loss of jobs, but it is really one about not placing restrictions on the sale of tobacco products and not enlightening people by explaining to them what happens when they use tobacco products.

Mr. Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the second paragraph of article 8 of the EC directive makes it clear that any requirements that bear on the import, sale and consumption of tobacco must not imply any change to labelling as laid down in the directive? If the Bill becomes law, there is nothing that the Government can do to stop imported cigarettes carrying health warnings

that cover only 4 to 6 per cent. of each packet. Those cigarettes will flood into the country and destroy jobs in our tobacco industry.

Mr. Barron: That is an example of the emotive language that is used in these debates. The hon. Gentleman talks about destroying jobs. The same comments were made in 1991, and they were reported in newspapers.

Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Barron: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend answered the questions that are now being raised when he spoke earlier. Unfortunately, some hon. Members do not want to listen.

Mr. Lewis: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The Commissioner responsible for social affairs recently said at the World Council on Smoking and Health that it was his intention to review the EC directive with a view to strengthening it. The process is on-going.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supplying that information. There is to be a review later this year. We should be arguing for the 25 per cent. requirement to apply throughout the European Union. 'Me should be interested in public health throughout the Union and not only in our own country. Some hon. Members might have a problem with that, but I have not.

Mr. Harry Greenway: If the issue is not about jobs, why did the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) attempt to draw an analogy—a false one—between lost mining jobs and lost jobs in the tobacco industry? If he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) do not think that the potential loss of jobs is real, let them come with me to Northolt and meet people whose jobs will be threatened. They do not care.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House, and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in particular, that according to "Erskine May" moderation and good temper are characteristics of debate. That is more an ideal to be striven for than that which is being achieved at the moment.

Mr. Barron: If the invitation of the hon. Member for Ealing, North extends to visiting the tobacco industry in Northolt in the morning and talking to members of the union that sponsors me who work within it, and then in the afternoon visiting the local hospital and talking to the consultants who are looking after the victims of smoking, I shall gladly accept it.

Mr. Alan Howarth: If we are weighing loss of jobs against loss of health and even loss of life, there can be no doubt that although loss of jobs is an important consideration, loss of health and loss of life are yet more important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill, highly desirable though it is and deserving of reaching the statute book, is a second-best solution? Surely it would be best of all if we abandoned all advertising of tobacco products. Such advertising should be unacceptable to us. It is surely unacceptable that great


corporate interests should be free to engage in advertising and propaganda to lure people into habits that will be deeply destructive to them.

Mr. Barron: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that when addressing me he is shoving at what might be called an open door. I completely agree with him. It is interesting that since we debated these matters last year and the introduction of the voluntary agreement, the Department introduced an increase in the size of health warnings on billboards. That was done under the new and tighter arrangements for the voluntary agreement. I am sceptical about the agreement, but if the new requirement is good enough for hoardings near schools, for example, it is surely good enough for cigarette packets in school tuck shops.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I waited a while before seeking to raise a point of order out of courtesy to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I wish to raise the point of order now before my right hon. Friend leaves the Chamber. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to draw a distinction between passion for one's constituents and bad temper. For my part, there was no bad temper when I intervened. However, I care passionately about the jobs of my constituents. I spoke only with passion, as my right hon. Friend well knows.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, passion can sometimes lead to ill temper.

Mr. Barron: What is the effect of health warnings? I have a copy of the brief that was distributed by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association to hon. Members a couple of weeks ago. Part of it reads:
The requirements of the Bill would not have the consequence of reducing tobacco consumption in the United Kingdom.
That statement is unequivocal. A copy of the briefing that was sent out by Conservative central office was handed to me this morning. It is from the Conservative research department—[Interruption.] I heard one or two of those words during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley.
The briefing states:
Terry Lewis' Bill seeks to raise the size of health warnings on cigarette packets from the current 6 per cent. of the surface area to 25 per cent. The Government"—
presumably there is not that much division in the Conservative party that central office does not speak on behalf of the Government, but perhaps we will find out whether that is the case later—
fought off an industry challenge in the European"—
I am sorry, I will start again. The Government
does not consider that this measure would have any significant impact on reducing smoking against the background of the action outlined above.
Clearly, Tory central office, if not the Government, feels very much the same way as the tobacco manufacturing industry.

Mr. Trend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barron: No, I will finish this point first. I want to draw the House's attention to the research paper on the

Tobacco Products Labelling Bill, which the House of Commons research department produced this week. On page 8, it quotes the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was then Secretary of State for Health and who said, on 11 July 1991, when the House introduced the Tobacco Products Labelling (Safety) Regulations 1991, which caused a stir among tobacco manufacturers:
The evidence from many of the representations put to us during the consultation period suggested that the warnings would be more effective if we increased the size, and removed the attribution to the Health Department's Chief Medical Officers. I believe that the new system of labelling will make a real contribution to achieving the smoking prevalence targets proposed in our recent consultation document, The Health of the Nation'.
What has changed, in terms of the consultation and advice that the Department of Health has received between 1991 when the Secretary of State said that and the briefings that Tory central office is producing now, to persuade the Government that there will be no change in consumption if the Bill is enacted? The House and everyone concerned—either for or against—has the right to know why the Department of Health appears to have a different view on the matter.

Mr. Trend: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the central office briefing—he has the advantage of me. When he quoted from it some seconds. ago, I thought that he was about to say that the Government had fought off the industry, but then he thought the better of it and quoted a different passage. Although I do not have the brief, my guess is that it probably pointed out that the Government robustly fought off a challenge by the tobacco companies on the amount of space that the UK Government demand for health warnings on tobacco packages. That is a good point in the Government's favour. They robustly defended their point of view against the tobacco industry and the hon. Gentleman should have said so, instead of trying to smear them as being the lapdogs of an industry.

Mr. Barron: I asked a question of the Minister that is relevant to this debate and to the Bill. I started to quote another paragraph and I will quote it now. It said:
The Government fought off an industry challenge in the European Court of Justice to have the size of the warnings reduced.
They did so and I mentioned that fact in response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Ealing, North about the fact that jobs would flow from this country if the size of the health warning were increased. It did not have that consequence then and, while I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would accept what I say, that has always been a weak thread in the debate and it does not hold water now.
These are examples of products that are for sale in this country. In the bottom left-hand corner, and in Australia and Canada—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, if he intends to use illustrations, it is important to describe them. He must remember that the Official Report is entirely written.

Mr. Barron: This illustration clearly shows why the Bill wants an increase in size. Conservative Members can see the coverage for health warnings on cigarette packets from Canada and Australia. It is clear from afar. None of them can see the warning on the Benson and Hedges


packet on the bottom left of the illustration, which has black lettering on gold and is for sale in our shops. The first warning that they will miss, as they get further from the illustration, is that on the product manufactured in this country. The warnings on the packets from Canada and Australia are stark.
There are many other examples—the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is showing us a British packet. He is absolutely right. This is the Australian packet. which is a little different. Can hon. Members see? It has two health warnings. The message is there.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my stricture, which is practical. It must be very clear exactly what is being said in the written record.

Mr. Barron: I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wirral, South was showing us a graphic example of Benson and Hedges cigarettes. I could not see any of the health warning from here, but Conservative Members clearly saw what was on the packet that I produced.

Mr. Bendall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that illustration has nothing to do with size? It is to do with colour, because no one could read anything at that distance.

Mr. Barron: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will see that that issue is at its heart. The warning will either be black on white or white on black and I dare say that then, even at the present 6 per cent., one would at least be able to see some of the lettering on the Benson and Hedges packet that I held up. One would be able to see that something was there, which is more than one can do now because we do not have contrasting colours. For that and for other reasons, the warning fails and hon. Members should take that into account. That change is in the Bill.

Mr. Barry Porter: I declare an interest, in the sense that I smoke and, prior to the Budget, I gave advice and assistance to the Tobacco Control Alliance, which is the alliance of corner shops that sell tobacco. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept the fact that one would have to be blind, deaf, or mentally deficient, or a combination of all three, not to he aware of the dangers of smoking, as is evident from all the organisations and individuals who go on about them. I have made a choice. It may be a silly choice, but at least it is informed. I know what is said and published, as does everyone else. We have enough information for anyone to understand any risks that they may be taking. Is that not right?

Mr. Barron: I am grateful for that intervention and will draw directly from it. At one level, the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not want to stop him buying cigarettes. If he chooses to take the risk, that is fine, and at his age it is a mature decision and something that only he can decide. Decisions on smoking are not always mature decisions, however, as they are taken by young children. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said that the incidence of child smoking has been reduced, but that is not true. I have here—

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Barron: This will not take a minute. The hon. Gentleman was the only member of the Standing Committee that considered my Tobacco Advertising Bill

last year to say that smoking is good for public health. Many people would disagree, including one member of my family, whose funeral I attended last Friday.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the rules. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, other hon. Members must resume their seats.

Mr. Barron: I have here a table from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on smoking.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Barron: Just a moment.
This table shows the incidence of smoking among girls. In 1988, 22 per cent. of 15-year-old girls were smoking. We have spent some money on health education to try to reduce that percentage, although I do not think that it was enough, both in schools through the national curriculum and through various packages, such as Smokebusters in schools—and elsewhere—which many hon. Members have supported. That is when the majority of people start smoking and those are immature decisions. In 1993, the last year for which we have statistics, the figure was 26 per cent. We are not winning the battle, particularly among young girls. The figures for boys aged 15 are 17 per cent. in 1988, and 19 per cent. now.
It is beholden on us all to do everything possible to change the position. I attempted to do so last year with the support of both sides of the House, but my Bill failed. I predict that, in the next five years, no matter who is in government, legislation will be introduced, because the organisations in the list that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley read out will lobby us year in, year out until we do all that we can to mitigate the use of that product, which kills so many of our fellow citizens every day.
The Bill goes a long way towards doing something about the problem. To judge from the passage that I read out, it seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley would have had the support of the Department of Health in 1991. I want to know whether he has it today.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not want to labour this point, but it is extremely important to point out that the figures that I have been given by the OPCS for the years 1984–92 show that the number of 11 to 15-year-old boys who smoke has dropped by some 40 per cent. and the number of girls by just over 15 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman must understand that a tiny number of people find the odd cigarette beneficial. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) been a smoker, he might have drawn a cigarette to calm his understandable outrage at the way in which Opposition Members dismissed the Bill's effect on jobs in his constituency.

Mr. Barron: I shall not be drawn into discussing jobs because the industry that I came from before entering the House lost thousands of jobs as a result of legislation voted on by Conservative Members. I concede that half a dozen or so Conservative Members did not vote for it. I shall not describe my surgeries as a result of the consequences of those political decisions. As I told the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I am prepared to meet


people in his constituency who think that the Bill threatens their jobs. I do not want them to lose their jobs but the public health issue must be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Luton, North chose to quote figures for 1984. He was right to say that, in 1984, 28 per cent. of 15-year-olds smoked and now the figure is 19 per cent., so it has gone down since 1984. But I deliberately gave the figure for 1988, since when the number of young smokers has gone up. During that time, we are supposed to have had better health education to stop young people smoking. The fact that the figure has increased since 1988 shows that, whatever we are doing in schools, it is not having the effect of stopping young people starting to smoke. We could go back to the base line of 1900 if we so chose, but it would not get us away from what is happening in our society or our responsibility as legislators to act against it.

Mr. Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that it may be part of the perversity of youth that young people may be reacting against the heavy campaign against smoking and taking it up as a challenge to their elders?

Mr. Barron: Young people start to smoke for a host of different reasons, which we debated last year, including peer pressure or the fact that other people at home have started to smoke. It is no good thinking that one can pick a single reason off the shelf and build one's argument around it.
I support the Bill and tried to introduce legislation last year because we must take on the issue in every way that we can and at every opportunity. If the Secretary of State for Health believed in 1991 that the size of the warning on cigarette packets would have an effect in terms of public health, it is good enough to believe that that is so in 1995. I support the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading today.

Sir John Stanley: I rise to intervene only briefly in this debate in the hope that all hon. Members are anxious to proceed to the second important Bill to be discussed today: the Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill. I warmly support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on his good sense, having secured fourth place in the ballot on private Members' Bills, in introducing it.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I put it on record that we are now nearly two hours into the debate and not a single opponent to the Bill has yet been called?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely at my discretion as to who is called. If the hon. Gentleman is challenging that, he must think better of it.

Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course I am not challenging that, but it is important that the record states that a number of hon.

Members oppose the Bill and, two hours into the debate, they have not been called. It has therefore not been a balanced debate. I simply wish to make that point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I point out that numerous interventions have taken some time to be dealt with? The majority of those who intervened clearly stated their opposition to the Bill.

Sir John Stanley: I was congratulating the hon. Member for Worsley on introducing the Bill, which intends to be helpful, responsible and overwhelmingly beneficial. The hon. Gentleman's opening speech and the subsequent speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) put forward the case for the Bill extremely cogently.
The case for the Bill is based on one essential and fundamental proposition, which I hope opponents to the Bill will at least acknowledge: it is universally accepted that tobacco in general, and cigarettes in particular, are addictive and potentially lethal. At the critical point—the point of sale and use—the warning of those facts should therefore be prominently displayed to consumers.
That overwhelming case for the Bill is relevant not only to those who choose to exercise their right to smoke—I deny no one that choice; it is also relevant because, notwithstanding the legislation in force, very young people have access to cigarettes. It is deeply regrettable that many parents still have the habit of smoking in close proximity to their children, including babies. In those circumstances, it is an essential part of our responsibility that tobacco companies display with due prominence the essential warnings about health.
A number of hon. Members have expressed in interventions their opposition to the Bill. If they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, they will be able to develop those points further. One singularly specious argument against the Bill is that it represents unwarranted interference in freedom of choice.

Mr. Bendall: It does.

Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend thinks so, but that claim is not only specious but extraordinarily paternalistic. It rests on the proposition that adults are incapable of making an informed decision whether to use a particular product that carries a health warning. If one carries that argument to its logical conclusion, health warnings should be removed from the packaging of all products that may pose a health or other hazard. That would not be remotely acceptable because on that basis, one would have to campaign to discontinue warnings against having unprotected sex because of the danger of AIDS. I am sure that few hon. Members would be prepared to advance the argument that far.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend argues that warnings should appear on tobacco products because, if used to excess, they can kill. Does not the same apply to alcohol? Should not warnings appear on bottles of alcohol, because it can have an equally devastating effect on people who use it to excess—in exactly the same way as cigarettes? Why draw a distinction?

Sir John Stanley: It is strange that my hon. Friend is apparently unaware of the different medical consequence


of smoking cigarettes as compared with drinking alcohol. I am not aware that alcohol consumption is likely to lead to fatal lung cancer.

Mr. John Marshall: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that an illness such as cirrhosis of the liver, which can be fatal, may be caused by excessive alcohol consumption? Is he saying that it is nicer to die from cirrhosis of the liver?

Sir John Stanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that many forms of activity can, in some circumstances, lead to death—but there is no parallel to the direct relationship between smoking and fatal illness.
As to the reaction from tobacco manufacturers to the Bill, they should pay—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I remind him of the old custom that hon. Members speaking from the Front Benches should not step over the red line. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Is that a red warning?"] A verbal warning has been given.

Sir John Stanley: I am grateful for your reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am now standing firmly behind the right mark on the tennis court.
Tobacco manufacturers should pay much closer attention to profound changes in public perception of their responsibilities in this country and elsewhere—the hon. Member for Worsley referred to foreign countries. The undoubted right of people to exercise their wish to smoke is increasingly balanced by the right of non-smokers, who are probably in the majority, to enjoy an unpolluted, smoke-free environment and to take measures to ensure one. The tobacco companies have not taken sufficient account of that profound change. The legal climate also is changing. In the United States, substantial litigation is in train, in which large numbers of people are seeking to sue for personal health damage from smoking. Following a recent decision by the Legal Aid Board in this country, it seems likely that similar litigation will begin here. Against that background, tobacco companies should adopt a different stance in promoting their products.
The key issue is the Government's response to the Bill. I remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health that I was among the hon. Members who were deeply disappointed by the Government's response to last Session's private Member's Bill on tobacco advertising, introduced by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. From my perspective, the Government gave a dismal reaction and failed to take into account their responsibility for the nation's health.

Mr. Sackville: Our response on that occasion was a robust statement on the strengthening of the voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry, which puts this country well ahead of any other in Europe in efforts to reduce tobacco consumption. I simply do not know what my right hon. Friend is talking about.

Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend stated the Government's view, but it is not one with which I agree. The large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House who supported the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Rother Valley also took a different view from the Government.
We hope that there will be stronger legislation on tobacco advertising in future. I hope that the Government will display a more constructive and responsible attitude

to this Bill than they did to that of the hon. Member for Rother Valley. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Worsley, whose Bill has my enthusiastic support.

Mr. Tom Cox: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and his comments. I make the point to certain Conservative Members that I am another supporter of the Bill who has been fortunate to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on his luck in the ballot, which many of us enter, but are rarely successful, and on his Bill. Many hon. Members, irrespective of party, have long campaigned on the effects of smoking on the population. Last year, I spoke in support of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), and some years ago I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered a similar measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), which centred on shop tobacco advertising. Those Bills, like that now before the House, enjoyed wide cross-party support.
I suppose that we all in our personal lives or in our work as Members of Parliament have experienced an event that never leaves us. I am sure that colleagues recall our meeting in the Jubilee Room with Roy Castle, who was greatly loved and respected by the people of this country. When he spoke to us, he was seriously ill and as he outlined the background to his lung cancer, no one could not have been deeply moved by the effect that that had on him and on his family. He said that he had contracted lung cancer because of the nature of his work. As hon. Members have said, passive smoking caused his illness and, sadly, it caused his death.
In recent years, two issues have caught the attention and imagination of the general public, and legislation on them had wide support. The first was drinking and driving, and I do not think that anyone now opposes the legislation to deal with that. Hon. Members have spoken about people's right to choose. No doubt hon. Members will recall that a long time ago there were debates about seat belt legislation. Some hon. Members said, "If someone wishes to drive his car without a seat belt, that is his choice." However, seat belt legislation has saved an enormous number of lives and such measures have the support of the general public and the vast majority of hon. Members.
In recent years, attitudes to smoking have changed. When one goes to a restaurant, one is asked, "Do you wish to sit in a smoking or a non-smoking sector for your meal?" In hotels, people are asked, "Do you want to have a room on a smoking or a non-smoking floor?" There are similar attitudes in transport services. Following tragic fires on the London underground, a strict ban on smoking was imposed. I rarely see anyone totally breaking that law and saying, "I could not care less about the laws. If I wish to have a cigarette while I am using public transport, I will have one."
Without doubt anti-smoking procedures in offices and workplaces have increased. I am sure that many hon. Members have seen in Victoria at various times of the day small groups of workers smoking outside the entrance. That is because company policy and the attitude of the


people employed there is to say, "This is a non-smoking place of employment." That shows the attitude of the general public.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman gave examples of restaurants with non-smoking and smoking zones and of hotels with smoking and non-smoking rooms. He also said that in some offices smoking is completely forbidden. Does he accept that those attitudes have come about not as a result of Acts of Parliament, but by the decision of individuals, by the working of the marketplace? Is not that often a more effective tool than legislation?

Mr. Cox: I question that. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the marketplace, but I shall not go down that track because the many interventions in the debate show how interested the tobacco companies are in the marketplace. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley said to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), "I will meet the workers whom you are obviously concerned about provided you also take me to your local hospital."

Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend was asked whether legislation had reduced smoking. Perhaps it has not, but does he agree that the Government's policy is to reduce smoking? Does he accept that the courts have had an effect as well? They have recognised the dangers of passive smoking and have made awards to employees whose health has been damaged by passive smoking. Therefore, employers have an incentive, which has been placed upon them by the courts, to restrict smoking in places of work and other public places.

Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend makes two valid points and I need not comment in detail. I fully support what he said.
It is said that advertisements do not have any great effect. In recent years, the tobacco companies went in for specific types of advertising and spent vast amounts on it. The advertisements were aimed overwhelmingly at young people and portrayed a certain image of smoking. The message was, "You are a tough macho person and you will be popular with the girls if you smoke this brand of cigarette." We all recall the sort of motor car that was featured and how the driver would pick up attractive young ladies. To complete the image, one had to smoke a particular brand of cigarette. Vast sums were spent on such well-researched advertisements.

Mr. William Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cox: I normally give way willingly and have done so a couple of times. But many hon. Members wish to speak and there have been an enormous number of interventions. I do not intend to speak for long, so I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
There are clear signs that many young people are smoking: 25 per cent. of 15-year-olds smoke. We see them everywhere as they leave school. Hon. Members have spoken about Government policy on seeking to educate schoolchildren about smoking, but it does not seem to have been very successful. All hon. Members, whatever part of the country they represent, know that

within two or three minutes of coming out of school, many children are smoking cigarettes. That needs to be looked at in detail.
St. George's hospital in my constituency is one of the largest in the country. I should like to quote from a letter dated 9 February from Professor Walters, who is professor of child health at the hospital's medical school. The letter states:
My particular research and clinical interest is lung development and the lung diseases of children, primarily asthma. There is now incontrovertible evidence that parental smoking, particularly maternal smoking especially during pregnancy is harmful. Furthermore, data shows that the group most rapidly increasing in its intake of smoking in the UK is young women.
We have heard that comment many times in the debate. The letter goes on:
Wandsworth, the area in which I work, has one of the largest incidences of childhood asthma in the Country and this is reflected by the very high admission rate at this Hospital for this disease in children.
That letter emphasises the point made by some hon. Members about the effect of smoking on children and on health generally. Of whom do people take notice? Is it of the highly skilled medical consultant or is it of the tobacco companies, which are obviously interested in selling the products that they manufacture? I and, I believe, the vast majority of the general public will take far more notice of that letter and the person who wrote it than of someone who supports the tobacco industry.
I could quote any number of letters. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley gave a list of people and organisations who support the Bill. I just want to quote one more letter, again from a lecturer in medicine—Dr. Griffiths who works at St. George's and who fully supports the Bill. He wrote:
One in four regular smokers die 15 years prematurely from smoking. Well over 110,000 smokers a year die from the effects on their general health of smoking. Smoking causes 81 per cent. of lung cancer deaths.
Again, that is evidence from a highly qualified doctor working in one of the largest hospitals in this country. Sadly, day by day he has to work with the effects on people who smoke. Therefore I and, I am sure, the majority of the general public, fully support the Bill.
I want to make just a few more comments before finishing my speech. Reference has been made to research into why young people smoke. I believe that attitudes change and that the reasons for smoking change, so there needs to be continuing research. For example, we have to question why those who took up smoking five years ago did so, and why those who are taking up smoking now are doing so. I want to put a suggestion to the Minister, although I fully understand that it needs to be studied in detail. We all know that young people have idols, whether they be in sport or in music. Young people pay a great deal of attention to them. Surely those idols are just the sort of people whom the Government should encourage to say, "Smoking is harmful; that is why I don't smoke."
We hear the records that youngsters like to play and we are aware of the promotion behind them. We know that youngsters have idols on the football fields—

Mr. John Carlisle: Cantona.

Mr. Cox: No, I am not talking about Cantona. There are some superb and honourable football players in this country who are a credit to football. They do everything


possible to promote the good side of football. They are the idols of the youngsters. The Minister and his officials should consider encouraging them to emphasise the dangers of smoking.
I want to echo a comment made by both the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about needing a clear sign from the Minister of the Government's attitude to the Bill. Interventions are the life-blood of a debate and there have been a large number of them today. Although many of the points raised were important, they were really more Committee points and that is where they should be made. I hope that the Minister will tell us about the Government's attitude because there are many points of real concern, especially for some Conservative Members, which should be discussed in detail in Committee.
I and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House wish my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley the best of luck. We shall do all we can to ensure that his Bill becomes law.

Sir George Gardiner: The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) declared that he is a lifelong non-smoker. I am delighted to say that that is one attribute that I share with him. I have never smoked—a cigarette has never touched my lips—[Interruption] Well, perhaps I am a passive smoker.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are regarded with a great deal of affection by hon. Members. We look upon you as a favourite schoolteacher. You keep us in order and ensure that we obey the rules. As we have seen today, you occasionally give us a lesson in good manners. Had you been a teacher at my school and, during break, had you gone up to the first floor, taking with you a pair of binoculars, and trained them above the open roof of the latrines, occasionally you would have seen little wisps of smoke, which might have made you somewhat suspicious. I can tell you that you would never have seen a wisp of smoke coming from the cubicle in which young Gardiner was sitting.
I believe that I have something else in common with the hon. Member for Worsley. As a teenager I was always very short of cash. I quickly realised that I could not afford to smoke and drink beer at the same time, or even in the same week. In my case, beer won—and so it has been ever since. I must confess that I dislike a smoky atmosphere. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I go to great efforts to ensure that I sit in a non-smoking area in a restaurant. I almost rigidly apply a non-smoking rule in my office—with the sole exception of the occasional welcome visits from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
I appreciate—indeed, I pay tribute to—the obvious sincerity of the hon. Member for Worsley in putting his arguments, although I felt that some of them were rather thin. I do not think that there is any disagreement about the deleterious effects of smoking on health. I agreed with some of the first part of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) when he referred to the difficulties suffered by asthmatics. Indeed, so far all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, which I think has been a slightly unbalanced debate, have been motivated by the best of intentions. We all know where the road that is paved with good intentions all too

frequently leads. We have a duty to consider proposals of this sort carefully. A great danger exists today, as it has in past Sessions, especially in relation to smoking, of introducing legislation that leaves us all feeling good and that we have struck a great blow for the health of the nation. The Bill would make no difference.
The same strictures could be applied to this measure as were applied to the Bill that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) introduced in the previous Session. I would call this placebo legislation—passing it may make us feel good, but it has no effect. We must ask whether the Bill is necessary. Among the member states of the European Community, Britain has, with the sole exception of the Netherlands, the most successful record in reducing the incidence of smoking. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys general household survey was published in January 1994. It showed that, in 1992 in Great Britain, 29 per cent. of men aged 16 or over and 28 per cent. of women smoked cigarettes. That was substantially less than in 1972, when 52 per cent. of men and 42 per cent. of women smoked. The Government's "The Health of the Nation" target is to reduce those percentages still further to 20 per cent. by the year 2000 for both men and women.
As has been admitted today, the reduction in the incidence of smoking is the outcome not of any one single measure, but of the implementation of an integrated package of comprehensive measures. Today, almost universal awareness exists of the health risks that arise from smoking tobacco. Whether people take any notice of that is a matter for them, but they are aware of it. Manufacturers' ability to promote their products is severely limited. Retail prices are high, primarily as a result of taxation rates, which exceed those applying to any other product. Of all the components of policy, the most effective means of reducing tobacco consumption is undoubtedly to raise the price.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend might recall that, some two or three weeks ago in a debate in the House, Her Majesty's Opposition saw fit to oppose the latest taxation proposals in the second Budget by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They do not share my hon. Friend's opinion that price is a necessary component. It seems as though official Labour party policy is now that taxation should not be used as a weapon against cigarettes. A future Labour Government might even reduce the taxation if they follow the course that they took some two weeks ago.

Sir George Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not doubt that the Opposition spokesman will give him the answer.
Price is a key factor. Research from all around the world suggests that every 10 per cent. increase in tobacco prices leads generally to a fall in consumption of between 3 per cent. and 6 per cent. Since 1979, the price of cigarettes in real terms has risen by more than 80 per cent. In his Budget statement of November 1993, my right hon. and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he intended to raise excise duties by at least 2 per cent. per annum in real terms. The two Budgets in 1993 led to a combined increase of 21p for a pack of 20 cigarettes. That brought the total increase in excise duties on a pack of cigarettes between 1983 and 1993 to no less than 1,235 per cent. Cigarette consumption fell by nearly 5 per cent. in 1993.
In his Budget statement on 29 November last year, the Chancellor increased cigarette prices again by 10 per cent. per pack of 20. In the mini-Budget on 8 December, to which my hon. Friend referred, and which was effective from 1 January this year, a further 6p was added. A recent survey by the leading market research company Mintel predicts that cigarette consumption is expected to fall by 5 per cent. per annum.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has been extremely tolerant and generous in giving way. Would he like to make the point that the yield from taxation on tobacco products approaches £9 billion per year? So far in the debate, not a word has been spoken about what would happen if smoking were virtually abolished, as I am sure many of the Bill's supporters would wish. Where would that tax come from, and what is the relationship between the cost of tobacco-related diseases and the revenue that is coming in? We have heard nothing on that score.

Sir George Gardiner: It would be interesting if the Opposition spokesman were to rise to that bait.
Although price is the key factor, public education is crucial, especially for young people. I agree that it is tragic to see young people, who are only too well aware of the health risks of smoking, nevertheless pushing them aside and bowing to peer pressure or pressure in their own homes to take up the habit. Often, there is almost a "mañana" effect. People think, "Smoking is all right for the next year or so, but by the time I am 30, I am sure I will have given up."
As we know, the Department of Health launched the biggest anti-smoking campaign ever at the end of last year. It has been referred to already. It cost more than £13 million. It will run for three years and it is aimed particularly at parents who smoke. Children whose parents smoke are twice as likely to smoke as children who come from non-smoking families. Tobacco advertising is already strictly controlled by voluntary agreement, and the effectiveness of that voluntary approach has been mentioned already. It was shown when Camel cigarettes agreed to end the use of new packaging that was arguably of greater appeal to children.
Health warnings appear on cigarette packets. In the UK, those warnings are larger than in any other European country, and 50 per cent. larger than required by the relevant European directive.
I also believe—I will not develop this point at great length because I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will do so—that there is a real danger that if the Bill is passed, it will undermine the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising, which was negotiated with the tobacco industry in good faith and which is proving extremely effective in restricting the promotion of tobacco products. If the Bill is passed, it may be counter-productive to that agreement.
I shall concentrate on the Bill's relationship to the European directive on the labelling of tobacco products and its effect on British industry. As has been said, this is central to the whole argument today. My views on membership of the European Community—the European Union as we are now told to call it—are quite well known. I am described as a Euro-sceptic although I certainly do not wish us to be outside the EC. The House knows full

well the importance I attach to this country's ability to govern itself as it wishes and to the House's ability to determine legislation rather than having Brussels or Strasbourg calling the tune.
In one sense, I wish that the Bill could be considered entirely on its merits without the complication of law made in Brussels, albeit that I would still find the Bill objectionable on other grounds, as I shall explain later. The fact is, however, that we cannot consider the Bill without putting it in the context of the European directive which, under the treaty of Rome, the United Kingdom has long since implemented under domestic legislation. When the Bill is put in that context, one quickly sees what a ridiculous and damaging proposal it is.
The Bill would make one law for our industry which could not be applied to competing imports. Why? The answer is because the European directive says so. Clause 1(5) says that regulations may provide that the main requirements will not apply to imports from other member states. It should say, "They shall not apply to imports if they comply with domestic regulations in the member state of origin." That is what the European directive says, whether I or the hon. Member for Worsley like it or not.
Before allowing the Bill to continue its passage we must, therefore, consider whether it is a sensible proposition or whether the whole idea is fundamentally flawed. There is no doubt in my mind that it is certainly fundamentally flawed.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I immediately declare an interest as I have a retail business that sells tobacco products. My hon. Friend spoke about the European Community directive and about the fact that it would give an unfair advantage to tobacco products manufactured outside the United Kingdom. I certainly would not want to see my shop with its shelves packed full of foreign products when we produce good cigarettes in this country. If we take action at all on this issue, it should be taken at a pan-European level and not just in the United Kingdom.

Sir George Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I shall cover certain aspects of it later. His experience as a tobacco retailer echoes the messages I have been given by tobacconists in my constituency about the Bill's likely effects, if it is passed.
The Bill would require the health warning on packs of tobacco products to be 12 sq cm or 25 per cent., whichever is the greater, on the front and the back. That compares with the size laid down by United Kingdom regulations, which provide that the area of the lettering of the warning must be 6 per cent. Of itself, this is an important point. In addition, the way in which the 6 per cent. warning is measured under the regulations is quite different from the measurement method proposed in the Bill. The Bill's proposal of 25 per cent. or more must be compared with the size of warnings used by other member states of the European Union. The figure is 4 per cent. in countries with one language, 6 per cent. in countries with two languages and 8 per cent. in countries with three languages. All that is laid down in the European directive on the labelling of tobacco products.
The European directive was introduced as a single market measure to avoid distortions of trade in tobacco products. In other words, it was intended to ensure that all products carried roughly the same size of health warning. Whatever I and other hon. Members may think about the European harmonisation process and where it may lead


us, the fact is that the Bill is directly contrary to the directive. We should at least be aware of that when considering today whether the Bill has any merit.
We should be aware of the impact that the Bill may have on smoking habits and tobacco consumption. Given the choice of buying tobacco products that have health warnings very much larger than existing UK health warnings or buying products that have a warning two thirds or less of the existing UK size, as would be the case with imported products, it would not be surprising if smokers chose the packs with the smaller warning, not because they did not know of, did not understand or did not accept the health warnings, but simply because they found the design of the other packs more appealing. There is some psychology at work here. Many people could imagine that the packs that had the larger warnings carried the greater danger to health. Being aware of the health risk, they might buy the imported packs with the smaller health warning on them.

Mr. Couchman: I expect that my hon. Friend has received the letter from the British Thoracic Society, signed by Dr. James Friend, which mentions that Australian research has shown that adolescents, when given a choice of brands with a variety of warnings, do not choose the packs that carry prominent, strong, visible and legible health warnings. Does not that reinforce my hon. Friend's argument that people will buy packets that do not have strong warnings on them?

Sir George Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Australia, of course, has the luxury of not being a member of the European Union and it can make changes to the warning on cigarette packets without being concerned about the possibility of coming into conflict with legislation from Brussels. Whether unfortunately or not, we are not in the same position as the Australians.

Mr. Leigh: Did not the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), the promoter of the Bill, give the game away earlier when he replied to interventions by me and my hon. Friends? He said that Commissioner van Miert proposed to change the regulations. The fact is that we have no change on the statute book at the moment. The hon. Gentleman did not deny that EC imports could flood in. Does not that make a powerful point in favour of my hon. Friend's views?

Sir George Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that point, both earlier and now.
We must go on to consider the impact on trade and on our industry. The United Kingdom tobacco industry directly employs 11,000 people. Those jobs are divided throughout the country. The industry accounts for nearly 3,500 jobs in the south and south-east of England; nearly 1,500 jobs in the midlands; about 1,400 jobs in the north-east; more than 1,300 jobs in the north-west; nearly 1,300 jobs in Northern Ireland; nearly 600 jobs in the south-west; about 600 jobs in Wales; more than 300 jobs in Scotland and nearly 200 jobs in the north of England. Those people are directly employed in the manufacture of tobacco products. Additional tobacco-related employment accounts for about 70,000 full-time jobs. They are found in a wide variety of industries including retailing, wholesaling, packaging, engineering, marketing, advertising and distribution.
If the Bill became law, imported products would be far more attractive to the smoker. It would not cause people to smoke less or fewer people to take up smoking, but it would simply mean that those people smoked imported products, either the brand they were used to smoking or another one. Even given all my reservations about European legislation, I cannot see the point of our passing a Bill simply to provide manufacturers in other member states with a marketing advantage over our own industry. That would mean that the House was putting British jobs in jeopardy and transferring them to other member states. [Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Why are they laughing"?] I am amazed by the Opposition's reaction to that.
Has the hon. Member for Worsley taken into account the real possibility that British manufacturers, when they find that they are penalised, will start moving their manufacturing base abroad to import goods here to protect their own market share? Either way, Britain would lose out.
Whatever the hon. Member for Worsley has to say in reply to that point, let him not be under any illusions. Despite the fact that the United Kingdom's tobacco products market is declining rapidly, overseas manufacturers still want a larger share. They will take every opportunity, and the opportunities that the Bill would provide, to do just that.
If the hon. Member for Worsley wants evidence of how different conditions in the United Kingdom market can and do affect trade, he need look no further than the cross-channel trade in tobacco products, which is a live issue in the part of the world that I represent. That trade has resulted from the fact that tobacco tax rates and prices are not harmonised between this country and other member states. The smuggling of tobacco products from the continent to this country is therefore increasing. If we now disharmonise legislation on labelling, as the Bill would, imported products would be sucked straight into the United Kingdom market.
The promoter of the Bill is asking the House to shoot its own industry and the nation's best interests in the foot. He is asking us to do so on unsubstantiated grounds that larger and more prominent health warnings on cigarette packets will dissuade people from smoking and that, thereby, the take-up and incidence of smoking in this country will reduce at a faster rate than it otherwise will do.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend has already mentioned the Australian example. We have had no evidence from the sponsors of the Bill to suggest that the larger warnings on Australian packets of cigarettes have had any effect on the warnings transmitted.

Sir George Gardiner: I would be interested in such evidence.
Another consequence that would flow from the Bill is the absolute certainty of long, drawn-out and expensive legal actions in the courts in this country and in Europe. I have some grounds for claiming that, because, not unusually, the European directive is confusingly and uncleanly worded. It has already given rise to different views by Advocate General Lenz and the European Court of Justice on a reference from the High Court concerning the United Kingdom's regulations on health warnings in the context of the European directive.
If the Bill is approved, the legal argument could be revisited since the European Court of Justice is not bound, as we know, by its previous decisions. There are strong


grounds for argument on the point of proportionality, particularly in relation to the prime objective of the directive, which is to harmonise laws to avoid distortion of trade.
There are other grounds for argument, because the directive sets down exhaustive rules in relation to the presentation, as opposed to the size, of warnings. The Bill appears to go far further than the directive allows. It certainly conflicts with that directive in permitting regulations to cover imports, for the directive says specifically that it cannot do so. Practical complications will, therefore, be caused by the implementation of the Bill's detailed provisions, contravening the requirements of the directive.

Mr. John Marshall: I apologise to my hon. Friend for being outside the Chamber for part of his speech. When I came back, I did not realise that I would have the good fortune to hear the rest of it.
My hon. Friend has referred to imports. Is he saying that under European law, imported cigarettes from France, Italy, Germany and Holland would carry the size of warning relevant in those countries whereas cigarettes manufactured here would carry a different-sized warning? Would he like to speculate whether that would encourage international companies to relocate their activities outside the United Kingdom, perhaps to Holland, to manufacture the cigarettes consumed in this country?

Sir George Gardiner: I am not certain whether my hon. Friend was present when I referred to that real danger, which would be a possible consequence if the Bill were to become law.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Member has twice said that British companies would relocate to Europe because of the problems associated with carrying a larger health warning on British cigarette packs. How does he equate that with the social chapter and the cost upon business?

Sir George Gardiner: I accept that if the manufacturers of tobacco products moved from here to Europe they would be covered by the social chapter. They would certainly have to pay the added overheads that would be associated with that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. It would be a matter for those manufacturers' commercial judgment whether the loss that they would incur as a result of staying in this country and having to put larger warnings on their packets would outweigh the costs that the social chapter would impose upon them. Presumably that would be an argument in favour of the social chapter continuing on the continent but not here so as at least to protect some British jobs.

Mr. John Carlisle: That is precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). Because of the devastating effect that the Bill could have on tobacco companies, they are willing to take the enormous risk and face the enormous cost of the social chapter by moving their manufacturing to other countries—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh about that, but we are talking about British jobs. By giving jobs away willy nilly and by taking no notice of

the devastating effect that the Bill would have on employment in this country, Opposition Members are decrying their own constituents.

Sir George Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for his further intervention. I would like to conclude my speech as other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
All market research shows that there is a virtual 100 per cent. recognition and awareness among smokers of the health warnings on packets. There is also high awareness of the warnings themselves, even though there is one standard warning and six variants that are used in rotation. There is also a very high awareness of health warnings among children to whom the anti-smoking message is preached strongly every day inside and outside schools.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Worsley that it is quite possible, as he knows, to be an anti-smoker and to be at the same time opposed to the Bill as I am. He assumes that people smoke and that children experiment with smoking because they do not understand the health risks that they might be running. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, he must accept that adult smokers continue to smoke with full knowledge and awareness of what is said about the health risks of smoking. They may delude themselves by saying, "Perhaps I'll give up the habit next year," or "Let's try it as a new year's resolution," or what have you—

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Gardiner: Let me complete the point. I would back any measures through the health service or elsewhere to encourage people who want to give up smoking to do that and any measures to make it easier for them to do that.

Mr. Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that giving up is not a question of choice? Nicotine is an addictive drug.

Sir George Gardiner: Yes, that is stating the obvious. We all know friends who smoke who say, "Yes, I wish I could give it up and save the money that I spend." There is no doubt that people are very well informed about the warnings.
Children, no less than adults, are also aware of the warnings. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said earlier, there is often a certain perversity about children and particularly teenagers. If we tell them not to do something, it is a challenge that they really must overcome, and all the more so if it relates to something that they think makes them appear rather more adult and when all the peer pressure is to do just that thing.
The Bill exhibits a particular and rather peculiar view of human life and behaviour. It presumes that by forcing warnings on people which they already know and understand, the Bill will change their behaviour and they will make choices that the hon. Member for Worsley and I would prefer them to make.
I take a very different view. I believe that people should be allowed to make their own decisions on a well-informed basis as I believe they already do on smoking, drinking, eating and all the other risky and pleasurable things in life. It is not relevant that I personally might not like the decisions that people make. I do not believe that we need a disproportionate measure such as the Bill, not least because it would damage the


country's interests without any guarantee that the hon. Member for Worsley would succeed in his fundamental, and I accept sincere, objective.
Finland fully understood that point when it decided most recently to comply with the European directive on the labelling of tobacco products. Finland reduced the size of health warnings on packs from 33 per cent., which was the national requirement before Finland joined the European Community, to 6 per cent. as required by the European directive in a two-language country.
I have no desire to promote the cause of a European super-state—far from it. That is not what I am doing in opposing the Bill. I am seeking simply to inject a note of realism into the debate and, in doing so, I am trying to put emotional considerations to one side. I ask my colleagues to do the same. If they do that, I hope and believe that the House will today reject this unnecessary Bill.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on his good fortune in the ballot for private Members' Bills and on introducing a Bill that is designed to improve public health, in particular the health of our children. I was interested in the comments by the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir. G. Gardiner) about the nation's best interests in terms of producing tobacco and cigarettes. Perhaps the nation's best interests are in improving its health.
Over the past two or three years, the House has shown its willingness to allow progress—albeit limited progress—on Bills relating to smoking. The majority of hon. Members accept that we need to emphasise the dangers of smoking and to accelerate as much as possible a reduction in the prevalence of smoking. I sincerely hope that the House will allow the Bill a Second Reading today and will ensure that some of the issues that have been raised—they range widely from health matters to the European directive and to our position in Europe—are debated in Committee.
The Bill strengthens existing legislation on health warnings on cigarette packets and on packets of other tobacco products. By doing that, the effectiveness of health warnings will be increased, thus discouraging people from taking up smoking or, perhaps, from continuing to smoke. The Bill is aimed at young people who contemplate smoking and others who are trying to give up. The Bill reinforces the warning in order to dissuade people from smoking.
Conservative Members have said that everybody knows about the health problems of cigarettes and about warnings on packets. If that is the case, why not allow the size of health warnings to be increased? If everybody knows about the health hazards, it would not make much difference. Hon. Members have talked about differences in health warnings. They can see the effectiveness of that in what I am holding up. Warnings that have been increased by 25 per cent. have greater visibility and effect.
The health hazards of smoking are well documented. They were first highlighted in the 1960s. Warnings on cigarette packets date from 1971. We have had health warnings for more than 20 years, but there are still people who insist that smoking has no link to illness, lung cancer, strokes or chronic coronary disease. A letter was

circulated recently by the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco—FOREST—in which it said:
In the first place, we of course differ from them"—
that is, the promoters—
in contesting the notion that smoking is unique in giving rise to 'health hazards'.
We do not say that smoking is unique in causing health hazards. Smoking remains the largest single cause of preventable mortality in this country. That is the point that we want to get across. The 110,000 smoking-related deaths each year can, to a large extent, be prevented.
The hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said that there are no health warnings about excessive alcohol consumption. I do not dispute that for a moment. However, the difference is that cigarettes, when used as the manufacturer directs, cause deaths. We are talking not about the excessive consumption of tobacco but about the consumption of tobacco at any level, which can cause illness, death and so on. The point is the use of the word "excessive".

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend, like myself, will have received a letter from a Member of the other place, who is the chairman of FOREST, which argues that we should take action against smoking. However, he said that there is also danger in articles such as kitchen knives and electric chainsaws. Does my hon. Friend think that, if a person purchases an electric chainsaw and uses it as the manufacturer says that it should be used, it is hardly likely to cause death?

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. The implements that he mentioned carry warnings about their use. If used properly, those implements should not cause problems. Such implements could cause accidents if used in the wrong manner, but they will not harm other people, whereas smoking does—through passive smoking.
More than 110,000 deaths each year are attributed to smoking. One person dies every day from passive smoking. That is not my figure, but was given by the right hon. Member for Peterborough Dr. Mawhinney) at the Dispatch Box a year ago during the debate on the Bill on tobacco advertising introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The right hon. Gentleman said that 50 children under the age of five were admitted to hospital with illnesses related to passive smoking. Those are Government figures that are accepted by the House. Those are the health issues with which we should be primarily concerned when debating the Bill.
The Government White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", recognised the dangers of smoking and devoted a considerable amount of space to that issue. The White Paper states that there are several hundred lung cancer deaths each year in non-smokers as a result of passive smoking. It states that smoking is linked to foetal and neo-natal mortality and low birth weight. It states that smoking contributes to 30 per cent. of all cancer deaths, and 80 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer; smoking accounts for 18 per cent. of coronary heart disease deaths and 11 per cent. of stroke deaths. That is Government information on targets, levels of sickness, illness and deaths contained in their White Paper, "The Health of the Nation". There is a health problem.
"The Health of the Nation" sets Government targets in relation to smoking. Its aims include reducing


the prevalence of cigarette smoking to no more than 20 per cent. by the year 2000
and reducing
consumption of cigarettes by at least 40 per cent. by the year 2000.
The paper also states that, in addition to the overall reduction in prevalence, at least 33 per cent. of women smokers should stop smoking at the start of pregnancy by the year 2000. The targets also include reducing the prevalence of smoking among those aged under 15 by at least 33 per cent. by 1994.
I should be interested to see whether Conservative Members questioned the Secretary of State for Health when the document was released on how many jobs in the tobacco industry would be lost by the year 2000 as a result of achieving those aims. I suggest that people welcomed the targets without mentioning the problems that would be caused to British industry.

Mr. Robert Banks: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the point that has reasonably been made that British cigarette manufacturers will be at a great disadvantage if they have a larger health warning on their packets. People will assume that those cigarettes are more dangerous than those purchased in packets from abroad which have smaller health warnings. Is it not true that, if a campaign were mounted to ensure the same definition on health warning sizes across the European Union, the House would support it?

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He was right to say that there is a distinctive difference in the size of the warnings—a fact also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley. The hon. Gentleman believes that people will automatically assume that some cigarettes are more dangerous than others. That might be so, but he will see that the two packets that I have before me contain the same cigarettes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley mentioned consumer protection. If cigarette packets contained more product information, and if the levels of nicotine, tar and other elements of tobacco were included in the health warning, people might understand that they were buying exactly the same cigarettes, with exactly the same levels of tar and nicotine.
At the same time, I accept that it is an argument that we should consider. I would support consideration of a European-wide increase in the size of the health warning on packets of cigarettes. If the Bill is considered in Committee, we can debate that development at some length and perhaps accommodate the points made in interventions by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

Mr. Leigh: That is fair. Why do not we seek to arrive at a European-wide agreement? Having secured that, we can then introduce appropriate legislation.

Mr. Illsley: The purpose of the Bill is to put the United Kingdom in front of the European Union by increasing the size of our health warning to 25 per cent. of the surface area of the packet. We are seeking to lead the debate in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley has said, the matter is to be considered again by

the European Union later this year. Perhaps there can be recommendations for an increase in the size of the label at that stage.
A comparison could be made with animal welfare, on which the Government are supposedly leading the debate in Europe. Why are they not leading the debate in public health matters, such as the labelling of cigarette packets?

Mr. Leigh: Fine. We should lead the debate in Europe. But we lead a debate in Europe in the council chambers of Europe. We do not unilaterally disadvantage our industry first. That is madness.

Mr. Illsley: How are we to lead the debate in Europe unless we can persuade the Government of the day to lead the debate in the council chambers of Europe? If we cannot persuade our Government—they need persuading because they rejected a Bill on tobacco advertising last year, and it is likely that they will not accept the Bill that is before us—how can we lead the debate in Europe? The Government should accept the Bill's Second Reading and allow a full debate in Committee. There are obvious differences on both sides of the House when it comes to the European directive and the Bill's provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley maintains that the Bill should not disadvantage us in Europe if the Government press for a similar increase in the size of warnings on European products.
In the debate on tobacco advertising that took place last year, it was accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley that adult smoking rates had fallen. There is, however, a dispute among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the extent to which levels of smoking have fallen. It was accepted in the debate last year that from 1982 to 1992 the prevalence of smoking among adults had fallen from 35 per cent. to 28 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley described that as a "significant improvement". I endorse that comment wholeheartedly.
For 15-year-olds, the story is different. Between 1982 and 1992, the comparable figures are 24 per cent. and 23 per cent. The prevalence of smoking among 15-year-olds has hardly changed, hence the need for increased warnings to address ourselves to the problem of young people smoking, especially girls and young women, who are now the most vulnerable group in terms of smoking.
It has been well documented that by the age of 15 years eight out of 10 adults who become regular smokers have adopted the habit. The age of 15 is not particularly old for children who smoke. The figures tell us that 500 young people a day take up smoking. It is obvious that that figure is far too high.
When it comes to children aged between 11 and 15 years, the target imposed by the Government's White Paper is clearly failing. It was hoped to reduce the prevalence of smoking in that age group to 6 per cent. Sadly, by 1993 it had risen to 10 per cent. The trend is reversing among children aged between 11 and 15 years. We are going the wrong way. Therefore, we must deal with the question of warnings.
The Government targets for young people are not being met, although the trends for adults are encouraging. I must return to "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, which says:
Predictions of future trends are hard to make and subject to wide error. It cannot be assumed that current trends in the reduction of smoking prevalence will necessarily continue, since the smokers that


remain are likely to be the heavier and more dependent ones who find it hard to give up. Considerable effort will therefore be required even to maintain the present trends"—
to maintain present trends among adult smokers and reverse the trend among younger smokers. What better measure to try to buck that trend than the Bill?
The White Paper continues, under the heading "Smoking cessation":
To achieve the objective it will be necessary that new smokers are not recruited to the habit and also that those who already smoke are able to stop.
The provisions of the Bill are exactly what the White Paper refers to—an increase in the size of the health warning to deter people from starting to smoke. The bigger the health warning, the bigger the shock at seeing it. That is obvious. It is an incentive to people not to buy cigarettes or, perhaps, not to use them. We must take the steps outlined in Government—not Opposition—policy to reduce the prevalence of smoking.
On the provisions of the Bill and the arguments surrounding it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley pointed out, it will increase the size of the health warning on a packet of cigarettes to cover 25 per cent. of the pack's surface area. It has been argued that the present level of 6 per cent. is about 50 per cent. higher than the size of warning required by our European partners—that is 6 per cent. of the surface area against 4 per cent.
Australia and Canada have adopted 25 per cent. As far as I am aware, little research is available from those countries, mainly because Australia adopted the 25 per cent. level only in January and Canada adopted it in September 1994 and so it is far too early to judge the impact of those warnings on smoking prevalence.
The Bill also calls for different colours to be used for health warnings on packets and for the lettering to be in black on white with a black border, or the reverse if the lettering is white. In the past, the lettering on the health warning on some packets was the same colour as that on the rest of the pack and was thus disguised, not easily readable and merely part of the rest of the wording.
When the labelling regime was put in place, the Government admitted that they had received representations warning them that the labelling and the health warning were too small. The Health Education Authority said that the effect would be marginal because it was difficult to read the warning, which was easily ignored. It suggested 33 per cent., which is higher than the requirement in the Bill.
The Cancer Research Campaign wanted an increased size in the warning, consistent with Government policy on reducing smoking rates. The International Union Against Cancer said that the figure should be 25 per cent. and the British Medical Association said that warnings would be a deterrent only if they were substantially increased in size.
I have seen examples of the various cigarette packets available in Canada and Australia and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley circulated a colour photocopy of some of the packs available. Any hon. Members who have seen the photocopies can see instantly the difference in the effectiveness of the larger health warning, compared with that required on British packs.
The warning on the bottom of a packet of cigarettes can be easily hidden if packets are stacked on shelves. As the lettering is the same as on the rest of the packet, it can be easily disguised, so its size needs to be increased.
The current warning on Australian and Canadian packets can be seen from a few feet away whereas it is impossible to see the warning on a British packet from that distance. Moreover, the colour contrast of the black and white labelling makes it extremely effective.
The wording should continue to warn of the dangers of smoking. We risk becoming complacent about the current warning. This morning we heard hon. Members say that, as everyone knows about the warning, we do not need to change the area of the packet subject to labelling. It is clear that we need to repeat the warning and, if we have reached the stage where everyone is aware of it but we still have a high prevalence of smoking, perhaps the time has come to jog people's memories and reinforce the message in the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation".
As we continue to learn of the harmful effects of cigarettes, we should continue to reinforce the message about the dangers of smoking. We should reflect the new evidence of those dangers in the warning and make the message direct. We must say that cigarettes are addictive and can harm children, and that smoking while pregnant is likely to harm the unborn child. Perhaps we should also reinforce the message about passive smoking. I shall say no more about that in view of hon. Members' comments following a visit to the House by the late Roy Castle.
It is well known and accepted that young people associate certain images with brands of cigarettes. When I was younger, the John Player Special brand was associated with motor racing, and Marlboro is still associated with McLaren and motor racing. I imagine that that image appeals to young people and we must deal with that if we are to reduce the prevalence of smoking among young people.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenvway) warned that smuggling was affecting jobs in his constituency and that, if we increased the size of health warnings on cigarette packets, more contraband tobacco would enter the country and damage jobs in his constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, I come from a mining area and need no lectures on protecting jobs, as my constituency lost as many jobs as anywhere else. We lost those jobs because the country no longer wants coal. There is some dispute about whether we think that the country needs coal, but the Government accept that it no longer wants coal and forced a decision on the coal mining industry which lost hundreds of thousands of jobs through evolution and the increased use of gas turbine technology.
By the same token, as the country becomes more educated about the dangers of smoking, we shall need less tobacco. Sadly for the hon. Member for Ealing, North, jobs will be lost in his constituency. He will not lose overnight the hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost within a few years in the coal mining industry, but he will lose jobs. He must face the fact that the country wants a reduction in tobacco smoking and that that is the Government's health policy. The hon. Gentleman must come to terms with that.
Some of my hon. Friends and I argued on successive Finance Bills for the assimilation of levels of duty on tobacco and alcohol to try to prevent contraband tobacco entering the country and the high level of smuggling, which affect jobs in this country. It is a supreme irony that coal miners from my constituency have been charged with importing contraband alcohol and cigarettes. It is a


pity that the hon. Member for Ealing, North is not in his place because I am sure that he would have appreciated that irony.
The argument that tobacco manufacturers might turn to Europe and that more cigarettes will be imported does not hold sway. As the health warning area in this country is 6 per cent. and in Europe 4 per cent., why has not production switched overseas and imports increased? They remain at 6 million cigarettes, compared with 82 million cigarettes manufactured in this country.

Mr. Robert Banks: Perhaps I can answer that question. There is little difference between a warning area of 4 per cent. and 6 per cent., but a heck of a difference between 6 per cent. and 25 per cent.

Mr. Illsley: The tobacco industry did not think so, because it took the Government to court. It felt that the 50 per cent. difference between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. to which the Minister referred earlier was significant enough to initiate litigation. The danger of European imports has been overstated. Provision is made in the Bill to deal with such matters. There are differences between both sides of the House on the European directive, but it is worth allowing the Bill to proceed so that they may be argued in detail.
Action on Smoking and Health produced a report for the Health Education Authority in December 1990 on the impact of the first Council directive on tobacco labelling. Unfortunately, it is not specific about the number interviewed in assessing popular views of health warnings. It stated:
The impact of the new cigarette pack warnings exposed in this research is likely to be marginal whatever the nature of the message, because of their comparatively small size … There is a tendency to interpret the smallness of the warnings as evidence of government duplicity. More worryingly"—
this point was raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks)—
there also seems to be a tendency to equate the size of the warning with the magnitude of the risk.
The message is, increase the size of the warning and the perception of risk will also increase. The report continued:
To maximise the impact of the new back-of-pack warnings, the optimum strategy would be to increase their size, position them near the top of the pack, rotate them frequently and ensure maximum colour clash with brand livery.
Opponents of the Bill argue that brand identity and trade marks, which tobacco companies spend much time developing, would be affected by larger warnings. The hon. Member for Luton, North, who is not in his place, commented from a sedentary position that packs would have to be redesigned. We saw from the photocopies circulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and from cigarette packs displayed in the Chamber that pack colours remain the same. Customers identify brand names—they do not go into a tobacconist and say, "I will have those cigarettes in the shiny black and white pack." Packs have already been redesigned to accommodate Canadian and Australian requirements, so the effect on

trade marks would not be as bad as some people suggest. A 25 per cent. warning area would not obscure the majority of pack names.

Mr. Alexander: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cigarettes imported to Canada must have the same size of label, whereas that would not be a requirement under the Bill?

Mr. Illsley: I am. That brings me to the argument on the European directive, as to whether we should enforce the requirements on imported cigarettes. That point was raised several times this morning, and the hon. Gentleman has been present for most of the debate. That is another argument for allowing the Bill to proceed.
It has been said that health warnings would infringe on the right to freedom of expression, but I do not accept that. The country wants to protect its health and that should be the main issue of the debate. It has also been said that the state or the European Union has no business to legislate in this area. The Government have produced a White Paper, have set targets and are pushing on the issue of smoking. Sadly, they are not doing enough in relation to the targets, which are now being reduced. Therefore, that argument does not add up.
It is said that consumers already know about the dangers of smoking. Many of them do, and many know about the health warning which has been with us for 22 years. That means that there should be no problem about increasing its size because, if that argument is valid, people will just say, "Oh, it is just the health warning again." The idea is to reinforce it so as to make it more effective to younger people and to those who want to stop.
It is said that health warnings have no effect on consumer awareness, but I do not think that that is true. Health warnings do have an effect on consumer awareness and a 25 per cent. warning would have an even better effect.
The Government have tried to reduce the consumption of tobacco through duty. There has been a reduction in the prevalence of smoking, but it is interesting to note that in 1985 tax as the share of the price of a packet of cigarettes was 74.6 per cent. In 1994 it was 76.4 per cent. so the Government are not doing much through duty to reduce consumption. The manufacturers may be able to increase prices dramatically, but the Government's share by way of duty is not having the influence that many of us would like to think it has.
Smoking among children is increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has said that 500 young recruits are needed every day to replace the 300 who die every day. The Bill is a sensible measure which deserves a Second Reading and time in Committee. It deserves to become part of the law of the land and I hope that the House will vote for it.

(Mr. Tom Sackville): I welcome this opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Government to this Second Reading debate on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), whose constituency borders mine. His utterances and his activities are reported in my local newspaper and I can assure the House that he


is a model Member of Parliament. He has even been known to put up posters on poster sites at Christmas wishing his constituents a happy Christmas.

Mr. Lewis: No health warning though.

Mr. Sackville: Perhaps they need one. He has been involved in many high-profile campaigns for the public good to do with telephone services. It is no surprise that in a totally unselfish way, he should seek to improve the health of the nation through this Bill.
There is surely common ground in the House on the importance of reducing tobacco consumption, and agreement on the illnesses and premature deaths that it causes. The Government and, I hope, all hon. Members are fully committed to that objective. However, we differ in our approach and in deciding how effectively to achieve a reduction in smoking. Government strategy is based on identifying the factors that are known to affect smoking behaviour and on taking firm, effective action on all fronts.
I stress that that strategy has proved successful. Over the past 20 years, levels of smoking have fallen from 45 per cent. of the population to about 28 per cent. As has been said, that is one of the best records in Europe and is second only to that of the Netherlands.

Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: I should like to carry on with my speech for a little longer.
In considering the Bill, we need to assess whether it would help to deliver the further reduction in smoking to which we are all committed. To reduce the damage caused by tobacco use, about which there is no dispute, the Government set ambitious long-term targets in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. There are separate strategies for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. The World Health Organisation has commended our target-based approach as a model for other countries. The targets we have set are ambitious not just because they require quicker progress than would be achieved on the basis of historic trends, but because the minority of people who now smoke are likely to be more dependent on their habit.
It is essential that strategies to meet the targets are based on the factors most likely to achieve actual behavioural change. We are making good progress against three of the four targets. For example, in the four years to June 1994, the actual number of cigarettes consumed fell by 14.5 billion, a reduction of 15 per cent. However, there are sectors in which we are not making progress. We must be frank and say that the behaviour of, in particular, 11 to 15-year-olds is very worrying. That underlines the continuing importance of not only specific initiatives targeting young people but effective measures to reduce smoking among the population as a whole. Parents have a strong influence on children's smoking habits, which is why our entire strategy to reduce smoking is focused on young people.

Ms Jowell: The Minister is stumbling over his Government's apology for their failure to reduce the number of young people smoking, especially young girls. He will be aware that 99 per cent. of smokers are established in the habit by the time they are 20. Therefore, it is important that we adopt any measure that will reduce

the rate of recruitment to smoking. Britain has been less successful than almost any other European country, especially France, Spain and Greece, in the rate of reduction in the number of young people who smoke—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Lady has made her point.

Mr. Sackville: I must correct the hon. Lady—I did not stumble through any apology; it was simply my usual diffident speaking style. The whole strategy that we have adopted accords with what the hon. Lady has said in that it is focused on young people. We must stop them taking up smoking.
We have developed strategies on a number of fronts. In February 1994 we published the Government's action plan, "Smoke-Free for Health". It provides a clear and comprehensive framework within which national and local organisations can play their part in reducing smoking. I shall describe some of the main areas. One of the most important parts of any effective strategy to reduce smoking must be to ensure progressive increases in the price of tobacco.
Research from all round the world shows that every 10 per cent. increase in the price of tobacco leads to a reduction in consumption of between 3 and 6 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a commitment to increase tobacco duty by at least 3 per cent. a year in real terms. The last two years' Budget changes have increased the price of 20 cigarettes by 37p, an increase of 13.5 per cent. in real terms. That means that the United Kingdom has the second-highest cigarette prices in Europe and the highest prices for hand-rolling tobacco.
We have also been active in trying to persuade other European countries to consider the health benefits of raising taxes on tobacco—not only out of regard for the health of our fellow Europeans, but so that the health impact of UK prices is not undermined by cross-border shipping within a single market. We have continued to ensure that there are effective controls on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products.
On 1 January, the main provisions of a revised, strengthened, voluntary agreement on advertising came into force. That includes the withdrawal of all permanent shop front advertising for all tobacco products by the end of next year, a dramatic cut in permitted spending on cigarette poster advertising to below 30 per cent. of the 1980 level in real terms, and the removal of all mobile advertising and all advertising on bus shelters and other small sites.
When we published the new agreement, we announced a new separate agreement with the industry to ensure that cigarette packets did not contain any pictorial matter likely to appeal especially to children. The hon. Member for Worsley mentioned Camel and advertising that looked as though it might be especially appealing to children. That was withdrawn, and that demonstrates the value of a voluntary agreement.
Other key parts of the strategy include action to ensure that retailers follow the law preventing illegal sales to under–16s, to encourage managers of public places and workplaces to introduce effective policies to protect non-smokers from tobacco smoke, to improve scientific understanding of the risks from tobacco and to reduce harm from tobacco products. We remain convinced of the value of a voluntary agreement.
On the issue at the heart of the Bill, it is a central part of the Government's overall strategy to ensure that the public understand the serious health risks of smoking. Wherever possible, the aim should be to discourage people, especially children, from taking up the habit in the first place. We must also ensure that smokers who want to quit receive all the support that they can.
Health warnings on tobacco products form part of a wide range of initiatives. For instance, we are continuing to expand national health education campaigns. In December, the Department of Health announced the biggest-ever national campaign on smoking, investing £13.5 million, which will run for three years and focus particularly on parents. Children with parents who both smoke are at least twice more likely to be regular smokers than children with non-smoking parents.
Education on the health risks of smoking is a statutory requirement in the national curriculum for children between the ages of seven and 16. There are new arrangements to encourage general practitioners to give their patients advice on smoking. Under the voluntary agreement, health warnings appear on all items of advertising. The new agreement increases the size and clarity of warnings on press and poster advertisements. Unlike warnings on packets, those serve as a reminder of the health risks of smoking for people who have not taken up the habit.
It is against the background of those initiatives and of the many other measures to reduce smoking that the hon. Gentleman's Bill needs to be considered. Since the early 1970s, health warnings on packets have helped to provide basic health information to smokers. In 1992, we introduced new health warnings, following the adoption of the European Community directive. UK health warnings are now the largest of any European country. They are 50 per cent. bigger than the minimum required by the directive.
As has been acknowledged, the Government successfully defended an industry challenge in the European Court of Justice to try to reduce the size to the level of other countries. So we can be fairly confident of our bona fides in our commitment to reduce smoking. We probably have the strongest health warnings of any European country, including the warning "Smoking Kills". Little doubt exists that, along with all the other initiatives that I have outlined, those health warnings achieve their objective. Few smokers do not know that smoking damages health.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister respond to what the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), said in July 1991 in a press release about the regulations on labelling that were introduced in 1992? He said:
I believe that the new system of labelling will make a real contribution to achieving … the targets … in 'The Health of the Nation'.
In my speech, I quoted a Tory central office briefing which said that the health warnings on cigarette packets did not make a difference. There is a clear contradiction

here. Will the Minister tell me and the House why there was a change in the view of the Department of Health between 1991 and 1995? Can he answer that question?

Mr. Sackville: I cannot be responsible for all the various briefing papers that the hon. Gentleman has read. I can say that the view of the then Secretary of State for Health was that 6 per cent. was the appropriate size of warning. The Bill would require 25 per cent. When the directive was introduced, the majority of the various European Governments and the Commission took the view that 4 per cent. was the appropriate size. This is really a debating point. If the size of warning is such a powerful factor, why not make it 100 per cent? Why not cover all cigarette packets with all sorts of health details? If the hon. Member for Worsley thinks that that is a good idea, why was the Bill not drafted in that way?

Mr. Lewis: Why not sell cigarettes in brown paper packets? I have no problem with that. We tried to make the Bill fair and we have argued on an incremental scale. I share the Minister's ambition to go beyond the targets in "The Health of the Nation". The Bill is an incremental move; it is a serious move which will be commensurate with the risk.

Mr. Sackville: If the Bill is an incremental move, does that mean that the hon. Gentleman will introduce a Bill to provide for a larger size of warning next time? I do not know. The hon. Gentleman talks about fairness. The Government take the view that it is fair to have a 6 per cent. health warning, which is more than our learned colleagues in Europe appear to think. It is a matter of opinion. As I have said, if the larger the better, why stop at 25 per cent? The British Government have decided that 6 per cent. is an appropriate warning.

Mr. Barron: The Government consider that the 6 per cent. warning is appropriate; it was defended in the European Court, a matter on which I congratulate the Government. On the basis of what studies have the Government decided that 6 per cent. is the optimum size of warning on cigarette packets, as opposed to 25 per cent.? Why did the Department of Health take the decision that 6 per cent. should be the limit? It is the biggest size in Europe. On what basis did the Government take the decision that they could not accept the Bill?

Mr. Sackville: We could go round this all day. The 6 per cent. size provides a legible warning that can be seen by anybody who holds a packet. That is what was decided. I am glad to say that the warning is larger than the size decided by Europe.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister take on board the point that we are talking not just about the size of the warning? That is only one element. Perhaps the Minister should go to the nearest tobacconist and get a supply of a whole range of cigarette packets. If he does, he will see that the 6 per cent. warning is cleverly disguised against the background of the pack by the media people who work for the industry. One of the essential elements of the Bill is to make the lettering distinctive—black on white with a border or white on black with a border. It is not just a matter of size; it is also a matter of the way in which the warning is portrayed on the packet.

Mr. Sackville: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion. I have to say that the available research evidence does not


justify the claim that a more prominent health warning would encourage a greater number of smokers to quit or discourage more non-smokers from taking up the habit.

Mr. Leigh: Do the Government have any evidence from the Law Officers or from anybody else to suggest that if the Bill were passed, they could prevent imports of cigarette packets bearing health warnings of only 4 to 6 per cent?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Member for Worsley suggested that it would be possible for the Secretary of State for Health to take powers to impose the requirements in the Bill on all imported cigarettes. The legal advice that I have is that she could not take those powers. It is clear that the directive gives member states some discretion about the size of the warnings on domestically produced packets, but tobacco products imported from other EU countries must be allowed on the market if they conform with the labelling requirements of the directive. That is clear.

Mr. Lewis: I have received contrary advice. In any case, the advice given by Law Officers on other matters hardly offers a good track record. We could take up that matter in Committee.

Mr. Sackville: That is the legal advice I was given, but obviously such things could be changed if the hon. Gentleman wanted to travel to Brussels.
There can be little doubt that the health warnings are appropriate. That is why we have brought in a voluntary regime that allows a great variety of warnings.

Ms Jowell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: No. I must carry on because other hon. Members want to speak.
If we are to influence behaviour, that is more likely to be achieved by a combination of factors, such as price and carefully targeted health promotion messages. One of the main themes of our national health education campaign is to get parents to think about the dangers of smoking not just to their own health, but to that of their children. Unfortunately, it takes more than a message on cigarette packs to get that signal across.
Supporters of the Bill have referred to the example of the health warnings carried on cigarette packets in Canada and in Australia. The United Kingdom's record on smoking should be assessed not by looking at narrow differences of approach with other countries but by considering how successful we have been in reducing tobacco consumption. Our record is not just one of the best in Europe, but one of the best in the world. From 1974 to 1990, tobacco consumption among adults fell by 39 per cent. That is a slightly greater reduction than that recorded in either Canada or Australia. It is also worth noting that there has been no real change in the Canadian level of smoking since 1986. Adult prevalence is still about between 31 and 32 per cent., whereas prevalence in the United Kingdom has continued to fall steadily from 33 per cent. in 1986 to 28 per cent. in 1992.
I have made it clear that the Government believe that the detailed regulation proposed in the Bill goes far beyond what is sensibly required regarding helpful information on tobacco products. It has been argued that, should the Bill become law, tobacco manufacturers might

seek to substitute imported goods. As things stand, it would be impossible to impose the regulations proposed in the Bill on such imported products.
Although we should not overlook some of the practical and legal considerations against the Bill, the central point is that we already have a comprehensive strategy to ensure that both smokers and non-smokers understand the harm caused by tobacco products. It is unrealistic to believe that the Bill would significantly improve public awareness, let alone affect actual behaviour.
We have an excellent record on reducing smoking, but we are far from complacent. We must make further progress through price, health promotion initiatives and the steady and consistent application of effective and reasonable policies. I therefore regret to advise the House that the Government will not support the Bill, but we will continue to take a series of initiatives to discourage smoking.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who introduced his Bill this morning in a most courteous way. I disagree with his conclusions, but he gave way most generously to many interventions and that was appreciated by Conservative Members.
Three thousand jobs in Nottinghamshire are involved directly in the manufacture of tobacco. They make a significant contribution to the city and to my county. Thirteen thousand other jobs around the country are also involved directly in the manufacture of tobacco.
Quite understandably, the hon. Member for Worsley has taken a break from the Chamber. However, on the Opposition Benches, there is the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), who is waiting to make her speech, and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). Where are the Labour Members from Nottinghamshire who should be supporting jobs that are at risk because of the Bill? Where are the Labour Members from Liverpool? They have gone. They take no interest in the matter. The Bill will do severe harm to jobs in their area.

Mr. Barron: How many coal mining jobs have been lost in the Nottinghamshire coalfields since October 1992?

Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that.

Mr. Barron: Just tell me how many.

Mr. Alexander: We know that many jobs have been lost. However, I said in my intervention in the speech made by the hon. Member for Worsley that two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that thousands of jobs have been lost in the coalfields must mean that Opposition Members should be far more assiduous in ensuring that jobs are not lost unnecessarily as a result of minor and perhaps silly pieces of legislation.
Parliament is today once again having its annual swipe against the tobacco industry. The proposals become dottier and more unrealistic year by year. As everyone knows inside and outside the House, smoking is a perfectly lawful habit. Done in moderation, it does no harm to anyone. It is dangerous only if indulged in too


heavily, like many other pastimes and aspects of people's consumption. People do that freely and lawfully during their lives.

Rev. William McCrea: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comment about smoking being such an innocent pastime, why did the Minister say, "We must stop people taking up smoking"? If it is so innocent. why would the Minister make such a statement?

Mr. Alexander: I am glad to answer that, although I cannot answer for my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not seek to encourage people to take up smoking. That is not my object and it may or may not be the object of the tobacco manufacturers. However, we certainly do not want people who have taken up smoking to do so to excess because tobacco consumption taken to excess can kill.
People of all ages are aware of that fact. We have had tobacco advertisements on packets and on our roadsides for so long that anyone who is not aware of that fact, almost as a fundamental, must be incredibly stupid.

Ms Jowell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is absolutely no medical evidence to suggest that there is a safe level of smoking?

Mr. Alexander: That may well be so, but I shall refer to things taken in moderation in a moment. We are certainly aware that people who smoke moderately do not suffer from tobacco-related diseases. The real problem with tobacco-related diseases relates to heavy consumers. That is why I continue my point that tobacco is a lawful product.

Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alexander: I have given way once and I want now to make progress.
I do not smoke cigarettes, like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner). It is probably 40 years since a cigarette passed my lips—I think that the last time was when I was at college; I did not care for smoking—but I occasionally take the odd small cigar. What I am fed up with—many Conservative Members are fed up with it, too—is the continuous exaggeration of the case against moderate smoking.
All hon. Members have had a briefing from the very eminent Lord Harris of High Cross, who had the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was a significant contribution to the debate, and it would be remiss if it was not heard in the Chamber. He made the point that many other activities that are indulged in by members of the public, such as eating, drinking, horse-riding, skiing and mountaineering, involve a severe risk of injury or death if done to excess or if consumed foolishly. He makes the further point that it is daft for Parliament in particular to resolve everything by trying to give us a risk-free existence. Good for Lord Harris of High Cross. That is a point about which I personally feel strongly.
We hear much about smoking-related illnesses—indeed, rightly so; it is part of what we are debating—but it needs to be borne in mind that the cost of treating those

illnesses is more than outweighed by the tax take from tobacco consumers, the majority of whom smoke in moderation.

Mr. Key: Nonsense.

Mr. John Carlisle: Perhaps the figures should be stated, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who says that my hon. Friend is speaking nonsense. About £9 billion a year comes from taxation on tobacco. My hon. Friend will probably know that the latest figure on smoking-related disease and the cost to the national health is less than £1 billion a year. Perhaps my hon. Friend will offer my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury the chance to intervene, because he obviously believes that £9 billion is not needed by the Exchequer.

Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes an additional important point.
The arrangements for health warnings, as we know, are a consequence of the implementation of the EC directive on the labelling of tobacco products.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend refers to the EC. I think that he means the EU directive. We must be up to date; it is the European Union directive. Does he accept that there is something strange about the European Union, in that it spends hundreds of millions of pounds encouraging the production of tobacco by farmers in Greece and other parts of the EU and it then spends a small amount on trying to discourage tobacco consumption? Is not it strange that an organisation that encourages the production of a commodity should discourage the consumption of it? Is not that Alice-in-Wonderland economics? Does not it underline the need for British Commissioners—perhaps Commissioner Kinnock in his tireless campaign—to stop the EU encouraging the production of tobacco?

Mr. Alexander: Quite so. My other hon. Friend makes a valid contribution to this important debate. I apologise for calling it the EC. Perhaps I am old-fashioned enough to call it that for a little while yet, but there we are.
Tobacco manufacturers have always accepted, although reluctantly and fighting their corner, the need to fulfil their obligations in regard to health warnings and the directive. There is a danger that those voluntary arrangements, if pushed too far by the health freaks in this country and the House, could well break down. We must recognise that tobacco manufacturers advertise their product in order to persuade people to use their brand, not another one. Their advertisements are not invitations to take up smoking. If they were, they would be illegal and would be banned. No tobacco advertising tempts me to take up smoking.
Those who ask us to support the Bill say that it would reduce tobacco consumption. I do not see how, of itself, the Bill could do that. Since 1971, there have been health warnings, and young and old in this country are aware of the risk of smoking to excess. There is the Health Education Authority's teenage smoking programme on television, and other advertising messages constantly reinforce that information.
We discussed the issues in last year's debate on the proposal of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to ban tobacco advertising. I do not wish to repeat them all, but I shall deal with the subject of children—a


matter that has already been stressed in the House. There is a lack of understanding of children's motivation. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that young people do things for devilment—for a dare. Placing a bigger warning on a cigarette packet will not cause young people to think again before experimenting with tobacco. Advertising is not directed at children. There are many pressures on children other than advertising to take up cigarette smoking and tobacco. The Advertising Standards Authority would soon stamp on any advertisement that promoted a macho or sexual image.
My main argument against the Bill is that tobacco manufacturers are acting legally. What consumers do with the product is lawful. If the Bill's supporters and the hon. Member for Rother Valley were honest in their objectives, they would introduce a Bill to ban the manufacture and consumption of tobacco. We could have a proper debate on that, instead of debating the nit-picking little Bills that we seem to get every year, particularly from the Opposition.

Mr. Bendall: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a slicing over the years? The next Bill on the Order Paper, the Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill, results in further slicing away.

Mr. Alexander: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
Most of the cigarette packet now consists of a brand message. If, as a result of the Bill, that brand message is dulled, the information to the consumer about what he or she may choose to buy is also dulled, making it easier for importers to make their brand message known in shops. We return to the issue of brand choice and trade mark protection.
A trade mark is a valuable commercial commodity, which the Bill will damage. Canada has been mentioned in the debate. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), but he did not seem to take the point. If one uses Canada as an example, one must be aware of the fact that Canada's advertising warnings have to be carried on imported tobacco as well as on locally produced tobacco. That, perhaps, would be fair. The Bill, however, would not be fair, and that should be stressed.
We would be putting things seriously at risk if we followed the route suggested by the hon. Member for Worsley. As I have said, the tobacco companies have willingly accepted their obligations. They have accepted advertising standards restrictions and they have fulfilled their duties to educate those in the retail sector about their obligations, especially their legislative duties. They are entitled, however, to resist, and to ask hon. Members to resist, further inroads into and restrictions of their legitimate market freedoms. It is foolish to put a fine industry at risk only to pass the trade over to foreign manufacturer competitors. Our manufacturers are not in the business of selling Government health warnings. Instead, they are in the business of making a lawful product.

Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that if British manufacturers felt compelled to move their manufacturing processes to another EU country, the

industry would leave these shores for ever and jobs within it, similarly, would never return to these shores? Is not that the point?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an additional and valuable point, which even at this late hour in the debate has not been sufficiently covered. I was talking to a senior member of Imperial Tobacco only the other day. He told me that there was a serious possibility that if the Bill were enacted, his company would consider moving its manufacturing operations abroad.
There is much more at risk than would appear on reading the Bill. If the Bill results in using tobacco manufacturers to sell Government health warnings, it will harm our industry. It will offer no perceptible advantage to the nation's health. It will not change children's habits. I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. David Atkinson: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on the choice of his Bill and on the simplicity of it. I have no doubt that he considered many more detailed proposals to discourage people, especially young people, from smoking. Similarly, I have no doubt that most of them would have encouraged strong argument and opposition, not least from the tobacco industry. I would have sympathised with some of the arguments.
I would not have believed until this debate that any one could have grounds for opposing the Bill, which is designed simply to draw greater attention to the lethality of the product as close as possible to the product itself. I applaud the hon. Member for Worsley on being so single-minded in the aim of his Bill.
Like most of us, I had a constituency interest today. I had accepted an invitation to attend the annual founder's day of the Bournemouth school for girls, which is located in my constituency. It is one of the most successful girls' grammar schools in the country. It has become even more so since it became grant maintained. I explained to the headteacher that I felt that it was in the interests of her pupils and those who followed them that I should be present to support the Bill. I do not have any evidence that any pupil at the school would dream of going behind the bicycle shed for a quick one—[Laughter.]—with or without the encouragement of boys from Bournemouth school for boys, which is located nearby. Perhaps I should ask my son, who goes there. On second thoughts, perhaps I should not.
The fact is that teenagers are still smoking in the same numbers as they were 10 years ago, as we have heard in the many references from impeccable sources today, including my hon. Friend the Minister, despite increased health education, as well as ever higher taxation of tobacco products. What is even more important, from the point of view of girls at the Bournemouth school for girls, teenage girls are more likely to be smokers than boys of the same age.
According to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' research on smoking among secondary school pupils in England, 11 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-old girls are regular smokers compared with 8 per cent. of boys of the same age. If only those girls knew or thought about the fact that lung cancer is overtaking breast cancer as the leading cancer killer for women, that women who smoke and use the contraceptive pill have 10 times the risk of


heart disease and stroke, and that babies born to mothers who smoke have a lower birth weight, by about half a pound, and a higher risk of death and disease in early childhood.
Many of us in this Chamber will have relatives and friends and certainly some colleagues in this place who died agonising and premature deaths because of lung cancer and other smoking-induced diseases.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend in that I support the Bill, at least in principle, although I envisage some practical difficulties. Does he agree that there are probably more effective ways to stop teenage smokers, especially the young girls he mentioned, starting to smoke than health warnings on cigarette packets, which might include the rigorous control of the supply and availability of cigarettes for that age group?

Mr. Atkinson: I agree and thank my hon. Friend for that positive contribution. No doubt there are more effective ways, which the House could pursue, to discourage young people in particular from taking up smoking. We have one such opportunity today, upon which we will be obliged to make a judgment shortly, and it deserves the fullest possible support from the House.
I was saying that we all have many friends, relatives and colleagues who unfortunately died because of smoking. My children will never forget the agony of a grandmother who died in that way. As the hon. Member for Worsley pointed out, she was of a generation that was denied the warnings on tobacco products that the Bill would only enhance. The first suspicions about tobacco's role in the cause of various diseases were not confirmed until the 1950s, with all the doubts dispelled in a report to the Royal College of Physicians in 1962 and another to the US Surgeon General in 1964.
Today, there can be no excuse for not appreciating that smoking kills and that it is a very painful way to die. The Bill will get that message across more clearly than ever before. That must be of interest to the tobacco companies that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) represents and I see that he wants to intervene on their behalf. I will let him.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend must say what evidence, if any, he has to suggest that a larger label—to give the warnings that he rightly outlined—will prevent more deaths. Is he questioning the intelligence of the British people and their decision whether to smoke? Is he telling the House that there would be fewer deaths if a larger warning appeared on the packet? If he is saying so, please will he give us the evidence?

Mr. Atkinson: Although I am fond of my hon. Friend, common sense suggests that it is self-evident that the clearer the warning, the more effective the message.

Mr. Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Atkinson: No, I have just responded to my hon. Friend's point, although I know that he does not accept

my response. It is in the interests of tobacco companies—I understand that my hon. Friend has some interest in such companies—

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend has not declared an interest.

Mr. Atkinson: He may have an opportunity to do so later in the debate. Tobacco companies will come under increasing pressure of being sued by their customers, with the help of legal aid, for failing to put clear warnings on their products that smoking kills.
I should have liked to ask the hon. Member for Worsley what thought he has given not just to the size of the warning on cigarette packets but to the content of the message. Only recently have coroners been allowed to state that smoking was the cause of death. That must result in including new, more persuasive information in the clearer message that the hon. Gentleman seeks to promote.
I welcome the Bill and, despite what my hon. Friend the Minister said, I believe that it complements existing measures introduced by the Government, including ever higher taxation, to discourage smoking. I thought and hoped that it would avoid opening up arguments with the vested interests, but the reaction of several of my hon. Friends has dissuaded me from that. The Bill merely seeks to invoke the simple message that, like lead, asbestos and drugs, tobacco is lethal and that smoking is the largest preventable cause of death, especially among young people. I wish the Bill every success.

Mr. James Couchman: I shall be brief, as an awful lot has already been said from both sides of the argument. I suspect that, in these days of transparency, one should always declare any interest that one has. Mine is that I recently enjoyed hospitality from the tobacco industry, during which time I was briefed. Between enjoying watching England thrash France on the rugger field, I received the main, all-important message, which is that the Bill is not about dissuading people from smoking.

Mr. Barron: It's not cricket.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; nor was it rugby league.
There should be no doubt that we all wish to reduce smoking among children and young people—and among adults. I have not smoked for 17 years. I say that because it seems to be a roll of honour in this debate to declare whether one smokes. My wife had a serious brush with cancer in 1990 and freely admits that it was probably due to the fact that she smoked until that time. So I am no friend of the tobacco industry nor a lover of tobacco or smoking. Indeed, I find the habit foul and revolting. However, the Bill's serious impact on employment should be considered. I tried to make the point in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that, once jobs are lost, they will not return. I shall return to that point in a moment.
There has been much contention during this debate about whether smoking among young people has increased or decreased over certain periods.

Mr. Bendall: Much of this morning's debate has been about smoking by young people. We all know


that it is illegal for tobacconists to sell cigarettes to young people and I sometimes wonder how young people manage to get tobacco. Do tobacconists sell to them illegally? It has always been illegal to sell cigarettes or tobacco to young people. Are not parents responsible for warning young people under the age of 16 that tobacco is harmful?

Mr. Couchman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The number of parents who now smoke has dropped dramatically. In 1972, 52 per cent. of men smoked but in 1992, only 29 per cent. did so. In 1972, 41 per cent. of women smoked but by 1992, the figure was 28 per cent. Parents have clearly accepted the message. Young people are well aware of the dangers of smoking and it is for them to decide, in maturity, whether they wish to continue smoking. I have two children who have never smoked, to their eternal credit.
The House agrees that since 1984, smoking among young people declined but that from 1988 there appears to have been a slight upturn. In an intervention, I suggested that smoking among young people may have increased recently as a form of rebellion against the heavy anti-smoking campaigns of the past six or seven years. It is in the nature of young people that they will often try something that they have been told is bad for them.

Mr. Bill Walker: People of my generation were given free cigarettes while serving for His Majesty in certain parts of the world. It was inevitable that most of my compatriots smoked, but I never did.

Mr. Couchman: I admire the strong will that my hon. Friend showed in those days.

Mr. John Marshall: This morning, we may have heard a most unusual confession—that a Scotsman was offered something for nothing and turned it down.

Mr. Walker: I would not want anyone to think that I did not turn that situation to some advantage. We also received air crew sweet rations, which were a good swap for cigarettes.

Mr. Couchman: That was a splendid further intervention from my hon. Friend. My constituency contained the former Royal Naval base at Chatham, many of whose sailors would have enjoyed free cigarettes. They were those dreadful RN brand that one had to keep in the horizontal rather than the vertical, otherwise all the tobacco fell out.

Mr. John Carlisle: Such anecdotes, which are relevant to the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If they had not been relevant, I would have called the hon. Members to order.

Mr. Carlisle: If I may be allowed to expound, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps then you can make a judgment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has arrived in the Chamber. It is said that she used to smoke—I know not whether she does now—because in her fine acting career, she was offered cigarettes as part of her job. I do not know whether she refused, but the serious point is that when smoking is part of a person's job or cigarettes are offered by Her

Majesty's services, it is difficult to stop smoking. All credit to those people, probably including the hon. Lady, who give up smoking at the end of the day.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I have by no means given up smoking, but my interest in the Bill stems from my awareness of the addictive nature of smoking. I would not want any young person to follow the trail that I am still on.

Mr. Couchman: Clearly the hon. Lady is less strong-willed than my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
The Bill would require packets containing tobacco products to carry health warnings of much greater size than required by the EU directive, which was introduced, agreed and implemented by all member states as a single market measure. Its function was to harmonise and to remove impediments to the operation of the internal market. That is confirmed in the directive's preamble, which states that it is necessary to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of member states concerning tobacco product labelling; eliminate possible barriers to trade; and prevent impediments to the establishment and operation of the single internal market.
I take a rather different view of the single internal market from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), which he explained in his long and interesting speech. The common rules in the directive take due account of public health protection. The directive states that its beneficial effect would be increased if it were coupled with health education programmes in schools and with information and public awareness campaigns. Who could disagree with that?
The Minister said that we continue to make considerable efforts to dissuade young people from taking up the smoking habit. We shall continue to do so, and that is to be applauded. It is part of "The Health of the Nation" initiative and I am sure that we all applaud the efforts by the Department of Health in that matter.
The requirement is for packets to carry warnings of at least 4 per cent. of the surface area or 6 per cent. if there are two languages in the member state. Three languages require 8 per cent. of the surface area of the packet to be taken up by a health warning. Only in Belgium, which has three languages, is there a necessity for 8 per cent. All member states have chosen to comply only with the directive's minimum requirement, which is 4 per cent. of the back and the front in states with a single language such as ours. In Britain, the Government chose to exceed that requirement by 50 per cent., and 6 per cent. of the area is covered by the warning.
I looked at a packet of cigarettes this morning—the first time for many years that I have done that—and I noted that the warning is quite clear and is couched in stark terms. It states: "Smoking causes cancer". That could not be plainer. Anyone who has ever had a packet of cigarettes and proposes to smoke will have read that warning and will choose whether to ignore it.
The regulations that give effect to the 6 per cent. warning are made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and impose rigorous requirements. As a result, the clarity and impact of health warnings in the United Kingdom are greater than they are anywhere else in the EU. The European Commission is reviewing national compliance with the directive and I understand that it is


unlikely to be satisfied on full compliance by a number of member states. However, let there be no doubt that the United Kingdom is implementing the terms of the directive in full.
While I am on the subject of the directive's terms, I should like to highlight the provisions of article 8, which are of great relevance and have been mentioned in the debate. The article states that member states cannot for labelling reasons prohibit or restrict the sale of tobacco products which comply with the terms of the directive. Member states may, as provided for by the treaty of Rome, set down requirements for the import, sale and consumption of tobacco products which the member state deems necessary to protect the public health, but such requirements must not imply any changes to the labelling regime established by the directive. That means that, provided imported tobacco products meet the requirements of the labelling directive, their import into, and sale in, a member state cannot be prohibited.
If the Bill became law, it would require cigarettes manufactured in the United Kingdom for sale here to carry health warnings covering 25 per cent. or more of the front and back of the packet. However, under the terms of the directive the United Kingdom would be unable to prohibit the import and sale of cigarettes carrying health warnings which complied with legislation enforced in the member state in which they originated. The Minister confirmed that.
The Bill rather grudgingly accepts that because clause 1(5) states that the regulations may provide for an exemption from the Bill's provisions for products imported into the UK from other member states. There is no choice whatever. Like it or not, the Bill must recognise that imported products would be able to carry much smaller warnings complying with legislative requirements elsewhere and would be beyond the terms of any UK legislation.
That cold fact alone makes a mockery of the claim that the Bill would help to reduce the problem of smuggled tobacco. It is almost certain that the Bill would in fact increase dramatically the amount of cigarettes that come into this country from other member states, which would tend to camouflage rather than highlight smuggled packets of cigarettes—those that are part of the enormous bootlegging trade.
It is interesting that Customs and Excise, in its recent appropriation accounts which were revealed to the Public Accounts Committee the other day, makes it clear that there appears to be a shortfall of about £100 million—

Mr. Lewis: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 1.

Division No. 76]
[2.9 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy





Cox, Tom
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michael, Alun


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Mullin, Chris


Denham, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Dewar, Donald
O'Hara, Edward


Dixon, Don
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Pearson, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Pike, Peter L


Eagle, Ms Angela
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Fatchett, Derek
Rendel, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Gale, Roger
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Gapes, Mike
Ruddock, Joan


Gerrard, Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Doug
Short, Clare


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Sims, Roger


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Soley, Clive


Janney, Greville
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Steen, Anthony


Jowell, Tessa
Stephen, Michael


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Straw, Jack


Keen, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Key, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Khabra, Piara S
Trimble, David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Vaz, Keith


Lewis, Terry
Wallace, James


Livingstone, Ken
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wilkinson, John


McCrea, The Reverend William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Macdonald, Calum



Mackinlay, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacShane, Denis
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Madden, Max





NOES


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)




Tellers for the Noes:



Sir George Gardiner and Mr. Vivian Bendall.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It appearing that fewer than 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion, the Question is not decided in the affirmative.

Debate resumed.

Mr. Couchman: Before we were rudely interrupted, I was saying that it would become impossible to determine which cigarettes were being imported legally and which were being smuggled in to be sold on the bootleg market. I was mentioning the fact that Customs and Excise has recently revealed that a revenue shortfall of approximately £100 million between 1992–93 and 1993–94 has become evident. The Treasury must be worried that it will hit a point of diminishing returns on its substantial revenue from tobacco. That is extremely worrying. Although the decline in revenue may suggest to some people that the smoking habit is declining, it is much more the case that a substantial proportion of cigarettes is being imported, legally or illegally.

Mr. John Carlisle: Part of the sadness of this morning's debate is that no one has said what a substantial


contribution taxpayers make to the Revenue, albeit that they are using a product that may be harmful to their health. We have not yet heard—we may in the limited time now available—about the proportionately small amount that has to be spent on treating the smoking-related diseases of those who fall foul of the habit. Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlarge on that point.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend is right. While he was taking a well-earned break, we heard that the ratio of revenue to the Treasury against revenue from the Treasury to treat smoking-related diseases is about 9:1.

Mr. Key: My vow of silence is over now that we have had the vote. I taught economics for 16 years and I am familiar with the maxim that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I have been unable to find any evidence about the balance between tax revenue and expenditure on the health service. I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's figures. He has defied the economists of the past decade.

Mr. Couchman: I apologise to my hon. Friend because I may be falling into the trap of taking an hon. Friend's figures as correct. The revenue to the Treasury is undeniable. The figures are available in volume XII of the 1993–94 appropriation accounts at paragraphs 24 to 30. My hon. Friend may care to look them up. They were the subject of a recent interrogation of the head of Customs and Excise by the Public Accounts Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark spoke about United Kingdom manufacturing; he has a particular constituency interest in that. I made the point that manufacturers might decide to take their production to another member state. That is a sinister possibility. To the extent that the consumers' choice of brand or product might be affected by the Bill, so imports would be advantaged and the United Kingdom industry would be damaged. All that would happen for no good reason according to those of us who want tobacco products to become a fast-declining purchase, as it is already.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Couchman: I should just like to finish this section of my speech.

Mr. Carlisle: Give way.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends have fallen into the trap of the argument about the export of jobs. I believe that the employment argument is the weakest of all the arguments deployed in the debate. I would take the tobacco lobby more seriously if it came clean and admitted to people that tobacco accounts for a small part of most of its business empires and conglomerates. Gallaher, for example, has 150 subsidiaries ranging from videos to whisky. B.A.T Industries has an interest in everything from insurance down to jewellery.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.

Mr. Couchman: I am tempted to join my hon. Friend in comparing the figures.
I received the annual report of Hanson plc, which reveals that sales by Imperial Tobacco, a Hanson subsidiary, were worth £3.25 billion last year. Imperial Tobacco is obviously an important part of Hanson's

business. It manufactures cigarettes in Nottinghamshire, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) wants another reason why we should be cautious about the exportation of British jobs and British manufacturing, he should note that the British tobacco industry gives us a positive trade balance of £500 million. Nowadays, we have to worry about all our exports and trade, so we should not be willing to throw away that money. Not only would we throw away a positive trade surplus, but we would be likely to incur a substantial deficit in terms of imported tobacco products, which would flood in as a result of the loss of cigarette manufacturing from this country. I do not want to overdo that point, but I am conscious of the passionate contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is worried about his constituents' jobs. We should not dismiss that concern lightly.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend should overdo that point, because our hon. Friends who have seen fit to reject the Bill have the jobs of our constituents and those of other relevant Members at heart. One of the most distressing factors of the debate has been the way in which its supporters, especially Opposition Members, have totally dismissed the Bill's likely effect on jobs. That is a disgrace.

Mr. Couchman: The supporters' arguments—

Mr. Harry Greenway: Opposition Members advocated that my constituents should lose their jobs. If any hon. Member is not passionate in defence of the jobs of his constituents, he is not much of a Member.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend is right.
The problem of smuggling has been taken up on more than one occasion with Customs and Excise.

Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Couchman: I must continue, because I have been almost as generous in giving way as the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) was when he began his speech at 9.30 am, which seems an awfully long time ago.
The only way to deal effectively with smuggled tobacco is to harmonise tax levels within the European Community. I hope that it is clear to the House that the Government's policy on combating tobacco consumption is working well. I hope that it is also clear that the labelling directive is a single market measure to prevent the distortion of trade and I hope that the House recognises that, of all European Union member states, no one has implemented the terms of the directive more strictly and effectively than the United Kingdom.
I also want to draw the attention of the House to the graphic illustration of how important the directive is as a single market harmonisation measure. We heard earlier that three new nations have just come into the European Union—Finland, Austria and Sweden. I am entirely in favour of that development. I wish to see the European Union broadened and access to the treaty—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 3 March.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

TOBACCO SMOKING (PUBLIC PLACES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 March.

PRISONERS (RETURN TO CUSTODY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

HOME RULE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not moved.

NATURAL DISASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members:: Object

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

PREVENTION OF FRAUD (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members:: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

INSURANCE COMPANIES (RESERVES) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [27 January].

Hon. Members:: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 24 February.

LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members:: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 22nd February, the Speaker shall—
(1)put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land), (Construction of Buildings), (Protected Buildings), (Input Tax) (Amendment) and (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Orders 1995 not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made; and
(2)put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to the Education (Mandatory Awards) and (Student Loans) Regulations 1994 not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Burns.]

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES

Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said draft Undertaking be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Burns.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4) of the Sessional Order [19th December] relating to Sittings of the House (Private Members' Business), on the last Wednesday before any adjournment of the House for more than four days, the subject for debate on the motion for the adjournment between Ten o'clock and One o'clock shall be 'matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournmene.—[Mr. Burns.]

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: rose—

Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it possibly be right for Opposition Members, and in particular the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), to object to the Second Reading of my Bill which is designed to bring safety and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Ainsworth: I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I want to explore with the Minister policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to review at some length programmes that are supposed to deliver those reductions. I want to elicit clear answers from the Minister about his current targets and his exact up-to-date plans to put his programmes back on track. I want to raise some of the social consequences of the Government's method of implementing their programme and to question their sincerity and real priorities.
I shall first deal with some facts. The Government signed the Rio convention and committed themselves to reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. They accepted the need to address that important environmental issue, but there are criticisms of the Government's record on reducing CO2 to which I shall refer.
The targets that the Government have set for themselves are very modest. The 6 per cent. cut in emissions compares very poorly with other European countries, some of which have pledged cuts of up to 20 per cent. The President of the Board of Trade, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, said that he believed that 20 per cent. cuts could easily be achieved. The targets were not ambitious.
My final complaint on targets is that there are still no long-term targets. In his previous life as Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), wrote a report a principal recommendation of which was that
by the end of 1995 a rolling programme of targets should be developed and strategies outlined for achieving longer term goals for the years up to 2010.
I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman will not reply today, as he obviously has much sympathy with my point of view. Perhaps that is why he has been kept away. However, as he is in the Department, I hope that he can persuade the Government and his hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), to act on that recommendation. I hope that the Minister will tell us if and when that will happen.
On policy and policy failures, "Climate Change: the UK Programme" said:
 "the centrepiece of the programme is the set of measures designed to limit emissions of CO2.

The centrepiece of the centrepiece, therefore, was the Energy Saving Trust. It was set up in 1992, with the task of delivering 25 per cent. of the Rio target. Lord Moore was put in charge of it and sent away to devise a plan. He came back claiming that, to achieve its target, the trust would need £1.5 billion to spend by 2000. That money was to be supplied predominantly by the electricity and gas industries in equal parts. When Lord Moore was reminded by the then Chairman of the Environment Select Committee that the electricity companies anticipated putting in only £100 million, he said:
 "My job is to try to be objective on this. I am saying that … to achieve the 2.5 million tons of carbon emission reductions, that [£1.5 billion] is what I believe we will need.
He continued that, if the view of the regulators was that the money would not be forthcoming, he would fail to reach the target that had been set.
Let us remember that we are not talking about a loony green-fringe activist. Lord Moore is an ex-Tory Minister, and he should not be the type to cause too much trouble.
On Lord Moore's prediction, we will not reach the target set. After a number of run-ins with the electricity and gas regulators, the Energy Saving Trust is woefully underfunded. Recent questions suggest that, if current funding is sustained until 2000, the total spend will be £158 million, a mere 10 per cent. of Lord Moore's requirements. Lord Moore, when he met the Environment Select Committee on Wednesday, confirmed that because of that he will achieve only 10 per cent. of his target savings.
On Thursday 9 February, Clare Spottiswoode's rejection of the vast majority of the Energy Saving Trust's latest proposals confirmed the continuing funding crisis. That came, by the way, after a delay of seven months in assessing the proposals, which has led to a formal complaint being lodged with the citizens charter unit by Andrew Warren of the Association for the Conservation of Energy. However, the Government appear to be totally incapable of preventing that unelected appointee from continuing to frustrate their policy, and unable to do anything about the social problems that arise from the decisions that she takes.
Spottiswoode has rejected every single proposal from the Energy Saving Trust aimed at helping poorer households with their fuel bills. That is an indication of the ideology that steers the Government and the individuals whom they appoint to their quangos.
The second major policy aimed at reducing emissions was VAT on fuel. The effectiveness of the measure was always questioned, with many analysts believing that low price elasticities would mean that rising costs would have only a small effect on consumption. Green groups said that the tax would work only if the barriers to energy efficiency were brought down. European research suggests that energy prices would have to be trebled to have a lasting effect on fuel use.
The Association for the Conservation of Energy claimed that a 10 per cent. rise in prices would lead to just a 1 per cent. drop in energy use. However, the Government claimed that they would deliver 15 per cent. of their targets. For the sake of argument, let us accept that figure. I simply want to know how the Government intend to fill the gap that has been left since they were prevented from introducing the second tranche of VAT on fuel. They were prevented from doing so because they showed no concern for the consequences that it would


bring for ordinary people. People saw through the Government and realised that they were hiding their tax-raising priorities beneath a green veneer. The Association for the Conservation of Energy calculates that the lower VAT rate will produce savings of 0.6 million tonnes of carbon against a target of 1.5 million tonnes—close to my simple calculation that half the tax hike will deliver half the savings.
Other policies, including the policy to encourage combined heat and power generators, are not delivering planned savings. In 1990, there was 2,000 MW of capacity of combined heat and power. To reach the target of 5,000 MW, new CHP schemes must be built at a rate of 300 MW a year—but only half that rate has been achieved over the past five years. I suspect that the 1 million tonne savings target will not be reached. Matters are getting worse. Last year, only 94 MW were built—a mere one third of what is needed.
Between 1990 and 1993, we achieved 221 MW of new renewable capacity—an increase of 74 MW a year. At that rate, we shall achieve only half the target of 1,500 MW of new renewable capacity by the year 2000. That casts doubt on the 0.5 million tonnes of carbon saving that the Government said that they intended to deliver in that way.
Improved building regulations are to be introduced too late. The aim was for new building regulations to be published in early 1994 and introduced later that year. Those measures are now to be introduced in July 1995—a year late—but the Government have not altered their estimate of the CO2 savings that were supposed to flow. Logically, the savings will be 20 per cent. under the 0.25 million tonne target that they announced, as houses built before the regulations are introduced will not conform to them.
To do their bit for the environment, Government Departments were to cut their energy use by 15 per cent. over the five years up to 1995–96, but some Departments are still not producing figures and the figures that are produced show that overall progress towards those targets is being made at only half the rate necessary to achieve them.
Health authorities were set targets for energy savings of 15 per cent. over the five years to 1995–96. With just one year to go, they have managed only 7.9 per cent. It was also announced that longer-term targets were to be set, but that has not happened. That part of the programme was due to provide 1 million tonnes of carbon savings, but it appears that only half that amount will be achieved.
The policy on domestic appliance standards appears to have been almost completely abandoned. In their original plans, the Government expressed support for EC standards to raise the efficiency of domestic appliances by 40 per cent. by the year 2000—to save 0.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions. They are now relying on joint voluntary initiatives in some sectors. They talk about continuing assessment of energy labelling and other policies, but make no reference to setting targets, and that represents a considerable retreat from policy. We can only assume that the target will not be met.
Research from the United States research agency, D.R.I. McGraw Hill, shows that the targets will be missed and UK CO2 emissions will increase over the period by 4.1 per cent. Despite all that, I have little doubt that the

Minister will say that he is still confident that CO2 emissions in the year 2000 will be the same as those in 1990, as promised at Rio. That seems surprising, given that Government policies now lie in tatters. He must be keeping something from us if he can be so confident. It is rumoured that the secret is that the Department has calculated that none of these programmes is necessary as emissions will stay constant without any effort from the Minister.
The Government have reached that conclusion for two reasons. First, they have changed their estimate of the proportion of electricity generated using gas and nuclear power, which lowers their prediction of CO2 emissions for the year 2000 without needing to reduce the total amount of electricity used. Energy paper 59—this was after consultation with the national grid—stated that 12 GW of gas-fired capacity was predicted for the year 2000. Energy paper 65 will predict, it appears, that 18 GW of gas-fired capacity will be reached. To reach that figure, 6.9 GW of capacity—it is only just past the first planning stage—has been included. Much of that will probably never be built, and still less is likely to be part of the national grid base load.
Similarly, it appears that problems with the nuclear generating capacity are being ignored. Dungeness and Heysham I have both been closed down since the end of last year and could be offstream for a long time yet. These two huge reactors represent about 30 per cent. of Britain's nuclear capacity. Yet Government figures rely on all this capacity being up and running in the year 2000. This great reliance on some broken-down reactors and a load of rather old Magnox stations staggering on into the next century is certainly cause for concern.
Secondly, it has been rumoured that the assumption of medium growth, which was used in deciding a target of 10 million tonnes, is to be altered to a low-growth assumption, meaning that CO2 emissions will not rise as high as first thought.
It is refreshing that the Government are being slightly more candid about the lack of success with their economic policies, but having to lower a target which would have reduced CO2 output by 6 per cent. shows a serious lack of commitment to the environment. Surely the Minister should be continuing to pursue policies aimed at reducing emissions by at least 6 per cent., which the programmes were supposed to deliver, and treating any additional savings from continuing slow growth as an environmental bonus. After all, he is not relying on better weather than usual in the year 2000. He should not rely on fickle energy markets and poor economic performance. We should remember that many experts always considered that the 10 million tonne target was very conservative. Halving the target would make it laughable.
I shall make three allegations. I hope that the Minister will respond to them by telling us what his future plans now are: First, the programmes for the environment targets have never been allowed to affect the Government's policy of privatisation. The privatisation of the gas and electricity industries has systematically taken priority over the environment. The sale of the generating companies and grids and the introduction of competition into the gas market continue to worsen the shambles. The Government are more concerned to sell energy producers than to conserve energy.
Secondly, the Government's ideology has led them to attempt to meet their targets without offering any assistance to people on low incomes. They have not invested money sensibly in energy conservation. They have done the reverse in trying to bolster their own revenues by. dressing up their taxes in green clothes. That is what led to the value added tax fiasco.
Thirdly, the Government have been happy to set targets without the means of achieving them. They have sought to kick the political football up the field to a time, as it were, when they feel that they will not be in office and, therefore, not responsible to answer for their failures.
Having made three allegations as a humble seeker of the truth, I shall pose some questions. How does the Minister intend to break the funding deadlock of the EST? Will he introduce legislation? Will he use gas legislation to force the regulator to fund environmental projects? Will he act on the recommendations of his colleague in the Department, the Under-Secretary of State, and issue regular bulletins setting out the performance of individual programmes and setting rolling targets for CO2 emissions beyond the year 2000? If so, when will that happen? Can he confirm that the Government continue to be dedicated to reducing CO2 emissions by 10 million tonnes by promoting energy efficiency? What does he intend to do to make up the shortfall—I estimate that it will be about 40 per cent.—caused by the failure of his present programmes?
Finally, and most interestingly, how can Ministers continue to be so brazenly confident about achieving 1990 levels of CO2 by the year 2000, as they sit surrounded by their failed policies? What is the secret?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Some people manage to read out Christmas carols and make them sound like a funereal dirge. To use a similar analogy of a football, I am afraid that when the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) kicked it, it went flat. The reality is that the Government are firmly committed to meeting the challenge of sustainable development. I shall try to answer as many of his questions as possible, but I will have to write to him on any that I fail to answer and I am sure that he will understand as the minutes available have been eaten into severely.
We are committed to meeting the challenge of sustainable development, including the threat of global climate change. A great deal of progress has been made since the publication last January of the sustainable development strategy, the climate change programme and other associated documents.
The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the international negotiations, under the United Nations climate change convention. While the scientific evidence of human-induced global warming is not yet conclusive, it is clearly right for us to take precautions now to safeguard our future.
The challenge is global, but the onus must initially be on those countries that have the scientific and industrial base to take effective action, which includes us. We must make changes and demonstrate what can be done, so that others in developing countries can follow. That is why the

United Kingdom has been at the forefront of international action under the United Nations climate change convention.
The convention's ultimate objective is to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. As a first step, the convention commits developed countries to take measures aimed at returning emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000.
We were the first country to present our national programme under the convention and the first to publish a detailed programme demonstrating how we were aiming to meet those commitments, and we are fully committed to fulfilling our obligations under that convention.
The United Kingdom climate change programme was published in January 1994. The centrepiece is the set of measures to limit CO2 emissions. It was based on. the Government's energy projections, published in 1992, which suggested that—on the basis of a central scenario without any new measures—CO2 emissions would be about 10 million tonnes of carbon above the 1990 level by the year 2000.
The CO2 programme is based on a partnership approach, and was drawn up following extensive consultation, which included representatives of all sectors of the economy. The programme was developed on the basis of that detailed discussion and debate of the most cost-effective options. During the consultation process, many organisations expressed a willingness to play their part by taking action to improve their own energy efficiency and helping others to do so—a genuine partnership approach.
The CO2 programme contains a balanced package of measures covering all sectors of the economy. We want to achieve energy savings as cost-effectively as possible. Our priority is to exploit the potential that exists for improving energy efficiency. That can bring social and environmental benefits, as well as reducing CO2. The programme is aimed, therefore, at ensuring that both individuals and organisations exploit the considerable scope for taking action that is cost-effective in its own right.
We are encouraging action through the climate change programme. The Government have provided the framework for change, but it is the decision makers in households and businesses, including the energy suppliers, who will take the action that will lead to lower emissions. Thus, a key element in the programme, the dissemination of advice and information on action that we can all take to achieve savings, is vital.
The domestic energy campaign, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", which we have run for the past few years, has successfully increased awareness of global warming. We have now introduced a new phase, called "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth", which will encourage domestic consumers to turn that awareness into cost-effective action in their homes.
We seek the maximum co-operation from the private sector in the campaign, and it was recently launched with an initial promotion on low-energy light bulbs. That was very successful and met its target of increasing sales of those light bulbs by a million units, which alone is expected to save 98,000 tonnes of CO2.
Implementation of the programme is still in its early stages but there is already evidence of the success of a number of the measures that it contains.
First, the "Making a Corporate Commitment" campaign encourages top management in organisations in the private and public sectors to make a commitment to energy efficiency. Some 1,800 organisations have signed up, and a recent survey showed that their energy management performance is significantly better than that for businesses generally. The campaign is succeeding by changing board-level attitudes.
Secondly, as part of our programme to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy technologies, the third renewable non-fossil fuel obligation order was announced last December. It is expected to double the capacity of electricity from renewable sources already operational under the first two rounds. It keeps the Government on course as we work towards 1,500 MW of new and renewable generating capacity in the United Kingdom by the year 2000.
Thirdly, new building regulations to come into effect in July are expected to improve the energy performance of space and water heating in new homes by 25 to 35 per cent. compared with current standards. We expect similar improvements in the non-domestic sector.
Fourthly, as part of the long-term strategy of increasing fuel duties in the transport sector by at least 5 per cent. a year above the rate of inflation, duties were increased recently by 8.6 per cent. in real terms. That also provides an incentive to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles and of driving patterns.
There are additional measures which, although primarily aimed at achieving other benefits, have been effective in contributing to reductions in CO2 emissions. For example, the home energy efficiency scheme has already provided grants and free advice to improve the energy efficiency of a million homes since it began in its present form three years ago. The budget for the scheme in the current financial year has been increased by a further £8.6 million, bringing the total available for grant to £77 million. In each of the next three years, the sum available for grants will be increased again to around £100 million—enabling about 600,000 homes a year to be insulated. Those improvements to the housing stock are long lasting and will benefit future occupiers of the homes and contribute to long-term CO2 reductions.
The hon. Gentleman touched on one or two other points, which I shall try to pick up as I go along. For instance, he mentioned combined heat and power. Considerable progress has been made in the use of combined heat and power, which has been encouraged since the privatisation of the gas and electricity industries. We now have 3,000 MW installed CHP capacity in the United Kingdom on more than 1,100 sites. I opened such a site on a housing estate north of London, which is using redundant tank engines. That is an interesting turn-round, considering the international situation.
The scorn which the hon. Gentleman poured on the public sector was utterly unjust because we accept that the public sector, particularly central Government, has a special role to play—if for no other reason than to set an example. The Government are fully committed to an ambitious target of improving energy efficiency on their

own estate by 15 per cent. over the five years ending in March 1996. The 1993 results are being analysed, but the 1992–93 CO2 emissions per square metre and CO2 total emissions had reduced by 6 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively. After March 1996, further targets will be set to take Government estate energy use to well below 80 per cent. of 1990 levels by the year 2000.
On efficiency standards for appliances, the Government have always supported the European Commission in developing measures to bring about improvements in the energy efficiency of domestic appliances. A directive covering the mandatory energy labelling of refrigerators and freezers came into force in the UK on 1 January. Further directives are under way covering the mandatory labelling of washing machines and tumble dryers, and progress has clearly been made in that direction.
Clearly, with an innovative programme of that scale, it is crucial that we monitor the progress towards achieving our overall target. Our programmes have quantitative targets. We monitor and report on them, for example, in an annual White Paper. We are also questioned on them regularly in the House. The hon. Gentleman is vigorous in doing so.
It is inevitable that some elements of the programme will save more CO2 than expected, and others will save less. Continuous monitoring is, and will continue to be, an essential part of the process of developing a response within the flexible programme that the Government have laid out. I have already mentioned some elements of the programme where we have carried out some adjustments.
Some items in the programme are more experimental than others and further adjustments must be made. I accept that the Energy Saving Trust had a difficult and uncertain year. I am abundantly aware of that because Lord Moore was my predecessor as Member of Parliament for my constituency and lives just down the road. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry announced that the Government will take powers to contribute to the trust's running costs. That will enable the trust to reconsider its plans, and it represents an important first step in establishing funding for the trust and the schemes that it brings forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of the regulators. Their independence is an important principle. They must balance their various duties, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on legislation that is not yet before this House and that is not for my Department.
Our monitoring shows that we are currently on course. Provisional figures for 1993 show a reduction of 6 million tonnes of carbon compared with 1990 levels. With the economy beginning to grow again, we cannot afford to be complacent. and we are currently considering whether further measures will be needed in the light of recent developments. We will draw our conclusions from that review as soon as possible.
The convention represents an important first step in tackling the threat of climate change, but it is only a beginning. The adequacy of existing commitments will be reviewed at the first conference of parties to the convention that starts next month in Berlin. It is expected that the conference will set in place the machinery for agreeing further far-reaching commitments.
The Government will support the position of the European Union, agreed at the meeting of the


Environment Council in December, which calls for the current commitments in the climate change convention to be strengthened and extended. The conference will begin to examine what more could or should be done under the next phase of the convention.
Our programme sets out possible options for further measures beyond the year 2000, and we will examine them carefully, taking into account the national conference to look beyond 2000 that was held last year. We will also take account of the new energy projections, to ensure that the UK is well placed to contribute towards achieving the convention's ultimate objective.
The Government emphatically remain fully committed to fulfilling their obligations under the climate change convention. The threat of climate change is a global problem and must be solved by global action. That is why we remain committed to active participation in the international process under the climate change convention and to fulfilling our own obligations. We will continue to monitor and review our programme, taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we remain on course to meet our commitments.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o 'clock.